Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 9

Polish participation
Is this source reliable? --Gce (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if they use that TVP logo. But seriously they get their information from escsweden.com which does not spark 'reliable'. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And that? --Gce (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That site is fine. They are the Spanish partner company to ESCToday.com (details of that are found on the bottom of their website).   Wesley ♦Mouse 10:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well; in case, Poland has to be coloured in the Commons map :) --Gce (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Feels like defecting
As I have noticed for the last year the WikiProject Eurovision may only rely on what ONE USER named Wesley Mouse likes best. I actually wasn't aware on how much power he had in this project but well now I understand. I know that I expressed several times in the Talk page of Eurovision 2013 that I didn't want to be part of this project anymore but that did not give him any right (or well maybe he did have but I wasn't aware of that) to simply move MY USERNAME from the active members' list. I am sorry for not taking off my name inmediately after saying I didn't want to be part of the project but is just that I enter on wikipedia just for a couple of minutes once a day and I had forgotten however the fact that this user took off my name just like that would never make me comeback again to this project. Goodbye --Tony0106 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that you have hardly edited Eurovision articles in the last year, I think you should be thankful you were still on the list at all. It was previously a requirement that a user frequently edit Eurovision related articles to stay on the active users list, with those that didn't being moved to the inactive list and then removed entirely - and that still is the rule on many WikiProjects. I changed the rule to being inactive in general a while back - however some on the current inactive list does seem to include active users, so this might need re-checking. Overall Tony, I think you are making a mountain of a molehill here - if you want to leave the project, fine, but don't expect anyone to loose sleep. I thank you for your positive contributions, although I cannot ignore that they are frequently overtaken by a lot of unnecessary drama, such as this. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony show some respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Just a tip. Wesley doesnt have "powers" he is simply very good editor and has perhaps taken some kind of "leader role" in the project. But that is a good thing when it is such a good editor as Wesley. As I understand it you said that you did not want to be a part of the project anymore and now you are upset that Wesley removed you from the members list, I think he did you a favour. Goodbye then.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing problem with ESCDaily
For the benefit of all Eurovision contributors, please see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles
This RfC will attempt to address what sections and content should normally be included in Eurovision Song Contest by country articles, such as Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest, United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest and so on. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As promised at the previous RfC on the layout of Eurovision Song Contest by year articles, now that the dust has settled, it is time to start an RfC on the country ones as well. Like before, at least initially, this RfC will primarily be on a section-by-section basis with discussion on if a section listed should be included or not, and if so, what content should it contain and how should it be formatted i.e. as a table, list, or prose? This would be also a good opportunity to discuss if any sections should be split into sub-articles. The results of this RfC will be used to determine how such articles should be laid out in the future. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this RfC also covers the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and any other sister/spin-off contests covered under WikiProject Eurovision where applicable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Section-by-section
Feel free to add any other sections which need discussion as appropriate. This listing includes a section if it is present in two or more Eurovision Song Contest by country articles, these being articls listed under countries at Template:Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The lead is very obvious really, and I don't think there is need to deviate away from MOS on lead sections.  Wesley  Mouse  20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
I have noticed since my time as an autoconfirmed user, that parts of the infobox mainly the best/worst results have become confusing to some editors and/or IPs. Some think that coming 25th in the grand final constitutes more of a worse result than coming last in a semi-final. How can this be so? The fact a nation came last in a semifinal and thus failed to qualify for a final is surely by far more worse of a result than having qualified and coming last in the final. A suggestion here could be to have best/worst final result and best/worst semifinal result perhaps? When it comes to the best/worst results in a final for nations who have never even qualified from a semifinal since their introduction - then we would simply put "have yet to qualify".  Wesley  Mouse  20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, would it be worthwhile to include a map to show where the respective nation is located within Europe?  Wesley  Mouse  21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume this discussion is still open. So here is my suggestion: I think we should stick only with the results in the final, you have to keep in mind that semifinals are only "qualification rounds" so they don't really determine the performance of a country in the contest as a whole. You're talking here about those coming last in the semifinal but you're totally forgetting about those who win the semifinals. Look at Romania they won the 2005 semifinal but they have never come first in the final (hence they have never won the contest) so would you consider Romania's 1st place in the 2005 semifinal to be better than the third place they got in the 2005 and 2009 finals? So to me we should just keep the final results and for those countries who have never reached a final I proppose, like you mentioned, "have yet to qualify". Tony0106 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Tony, I think you have misinterpreted my comments above. I never instigated that a country coming 1st in a semifinal would be a better result than coming 3rd in a final.  If you read again what I wrote you'll notice I said the opposite; in that some people seem to think that coming 19th in a semifinal is better than coming 25th in a final.  OK 19 comes before 25, but a final comes before a semifinal, and thus makes 25th (final) higher than 19th (semifinal).  And going off your suggestion of only listing results in the final.  How would we treat those nations who have never yet qualified from a semifinal?  Do we ignore their results all together?  Surely they are just as equally justified to have their best/worst results included.  Hence why I suggested we look into listing results for both semi and finals.  For example Romania: We could list their best/worst final results as well as their best/worst semifinal results.   Wesley ♦Mouse 20:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Wesley, I hope you read this comment three times: Yes I misinterpret your comments and I'm sorry BUT I've never said that you considered a 1st place in the semifinal better than a 3rd in the final. Please read carefully "You're talking here about those coming last in the semifinal but you're totally forgetting about those who win the semifinals." did you notice the "BUT you're totally forgetting..."?? sentence. I think you didn't finish reading my comment " and for those countries who have never reached a final I proppose, like you mentioned, "have yet to qualify". I'm not ignoring at all and by the way is only one active participant (San Marino) and two non-active participants (Andorra and Czech Republic). It seems to me that everything I suggest upsets you. --Tony0106 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Um Tony. Considering only I had posted on this section prior to yourself, then it did look like you were judging some of the points I had raised - unfortunately.  I mentioned in my original post from an observational point of view, in regards to what I have witnessed from IPs and even registered users.  In that some do tend to think that coming 18th in a semifinal is a better result then coming 25th in a final.  And I have told you in the past about judging my reading abilities and making comments regarding them.  Please don't do that in future, it is the least that I ask of you.   Wesley ♦Mouse 22:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact I read your original post thoroughly and with much interest actually. Spent a whole 30 minutes reading everything (including my own comments) just to refresh my memory on the matter.  Its like you said; "I think we should stick only with the results in the final, you have to keep in mind that semifinals are only "qualification rounds" so they don't really determine the performance of a country in the contest as a whole" - seeing as this is an active RfC for project member to express opinions, I did just that, I expressed an opinion based on your suggestion.  I asked you why would we only show just the best/worst final results.  Surely a country who has yet to even qualify for a final is also entitled to have their best/worst semifinal results shown on the article too!?
 * You then went on to add "You're talking here about those coming last in the semifinal but you're totally forgetting about those who win the semifinals. Look at Romania they won the 2005 semifinal but they have never come first in the final (hence they have never won the contest) so would you consider Romania's 1st place in the 2005 semifinal to be better than the third place they got in the 2005 and 2009 finals?". Again you stated an observation, a suggestion, as well as ask me a question - to which I responded.  You asked me would I consider Romania's 1st place semifinal result to be better than third place in a final.  Considering my original post answered that question before you even asked it, then you would have known what my answer would have been and thus not needed to have asked it in the first place.  Its like I said one way we could look into improving this type of data would be to show the best and worst results for a final, and also the best and worst results for a semifinal - and then we'd be covering everything in an article - to take Romania for example; using the method I suggest would allow us to inform a general viewer the best result Romania achieved in a final as well as in a semifinal; along with the worst results in both too.   Wesley ♦Mouse 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the easiest solution would be to have worst result as "failed to qualify" where applicable, with the best always being how the country did in the final. If a country has never qualified for the final, or has only participated once, then the best and worst boxes might as well be kept blank. The possibly better solution would to have separate entries for finals and semi-finals. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

History

 * There are many variations in how history content is presented across articles. Often there is simply a history section, as in Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest as the heading across articles, or there is just an absences section instead (e.g. Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest), or sometimes history related content is split into several sections, as in Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The history sections are vital in my personal opinion. However, I think the way they are styled could do with some improvements.  Is there really a need to have year by year sub-sections within the history part?  Couldn't these be amalgamated better into several paragraphs without the need to sub-section them into a year by year basis?  We're now on the 58th year, imagine how they will look when we get to the centenary contest.   Wesley   Mouse  20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My suggestion here is to split the history sections into decades I think is the best option. And we should also look for information on how countries like Albania or San Marino (who had been independent long before 1956) regarded the contest before they make their debuts. Did it receive media attention? Was it banned? It'll make these articles much more interersting. Tony0106 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of including information on how nations regards the contest prior to their débuts. As long as its sourced of course.  I have to disagree on splitting content into decades though I'm afraid.  Just think what an article would look like come 2056.  You'd end up with the history section having 10 sub-sections covering each decade.  In my opinion that would look unsightly, and could easily be improved better.   Wesley ♦Mouse 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Man don't you think that by 2056 Wikipedia will still have the exact same layout or that the Internet will be the same as today? Cheez, you're talking about 44 years into the future? People in 1956 did not even think they could ever own a computer. Wikipedia did not even exist 15 years ago. The Internet was not even accessible to everyone 20 years ago. You have wireless spots now and laptops. Man, we have to talk about the present day. Maybe in 6 months we will be having another discussion to re-arrange all the Eurovision pages again. --Tony0106 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And the whole point of this RfC is so that we can look into improvements that will last a lot longer than just a few months. It would be utterly stupid to hold this discussion, and then 6 months later have another one for the same thing.  Its all about looking into ways to make things better in the long-term so that we wouldn't need to revisit layout styles for at least a good 4/5 years down the line.  I know that things will change in 44 years from now, but 5 years from now - well I doubt things will change that rapidly.   Wesley ♦Mouse 22:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Man I love the abilty you have to simply refute everything I say. You're actually telling me that things will not change that rapidly in 5 years? 5 years ago it was 2007: There was only one semifinal in Eurovision, we didn't have android phones, the iPad did not even exist, and you're telling that things won't change 5 years from now? And actually to make your comments more of a personal attack to me; in 5 years from now, it will be 2017 so we will still be in the 2010s and we will still have only 6/7 subsections.... You know what? You win, I won't discuss this anymore and I won't be part of the Project Eurovision anymore because it's pointless. Everything I suggest is wrong. You don't want to discuss anything with me because you'd always show up with the craziest arguments (what will do in 2056!! OMG) give me a break man. Goodbye. Don't bother to respond. Do as you like on every single Eurovision page that exists in Wikipedia. --Tony0106 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tony, please refrain from making derogatory comments towards myself. I am just as entitled as you are to cast an opinion on what I see and on ideas.  You should know better that everyone is entitled to hold a difference of opinion, and you should respect that, not shunt people down just because they don't share the same point of view as you hold.  If everyone did that, then we wouldn't need to hold RfC's.  Oh I forgot, its the Tonypedia organisation.  You only need to see the previous RFC, to notice that some (not all) of the suggestions that I made actually worked on articles and improved them to the point that this project got its first GA-class on an annual page.  You have even agreed below with the awards section, and that was an idea that I MADE at the previous RFC which became implemented and greatly improved article content.   Wesley ♦Mouse 15:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The overall set-up of Wikipedia hasn't changed much in ten years, but I don't think we should worry much about any problem which won't appear for decades. In any case, while it is good to summarize things so everything is of long-term interest, we certainly shouldn't artificially condense historical information just because there is too much of it. As Wikipedia is today, the best way to solve overcrowding in articles is to split them-up i.e. have a separate article on the history, but I don't see the need for that yet.

As for the layout itself, it should be in chronological order and for most long-term participants sub-sections will be needed. I think having them by year will be overkill, so by decade while rather arbitrary, may work nicely. Ultimately though, there will be always have to be some country-by-country flexibility in this section. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose I can compromise to showing things by decade then. It would read easier on the eye.   Wesley ♦Mouse 14:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Records

 * Sometimes appears, as in Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my suggestion on the voting history below. If we were to agree on removing the voting history tallies, and replace with a prose on known voting patterns.  Then we could amalgamated this section into that to show any known records too - obviously we may need to present the information with a new header.   Wesley   Mouse  21:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it this is just another name for trivia sections, and so should be removed completely. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Contestants
I personally think these are well documented and self-explanatory to the general reader. Perhaps an introductory prose could be added to the top of this section to explain to the user what the table contain?  Wesley  Mouse  20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some introductory prose should be present, yes, as tables on their own can cause confusion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Voting history
I support a full removal of these. 1) they are a list of mathematical statistics of voting history, and there are no real sources that can be used to verify these totals are accurate. 2) some IPs have been known to just make up the sums and change them to their personal liking. I have found that such actions make it hard to revert as I'd have to physically recalculate the voting histories again just to correct any errors the IPs make. It would be better to just get rid of them completely, and perhaps replace with a prose on the known voting patterns of each respective country - which can be verified with reliable sources too.  Wesley  Mouse  21:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really mind what happens to them. They're a nice addition but not necessary. However, the BBC did state during the 2012 contest that Belgium has voted for the UK most. I oppose the written idea though. It just looks tacky, á la the Swiss page. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they should be removed all together. Its not about making an article look pretty and nice and decorated with colourful tables of statistics; its about providing knowledge of encyclopaedic value that can be easily verified with reliable sources.  Besides we have Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest which goes more in-depth on voting patterns etc, which should be sufficient enough.   Wesley ♦Mouse 16:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I must say, I think those voting history things are very informative, they tell us who countries like and things - if these left I think it would be a huge loss. I'm not sure how to finish this comment this is my first time on a discussion, user:lavalamp13 —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your view on this, but we de need to remember that all content on Wikipedia needs to be verified with reliable sources. There are no sources that show a collective voting history result.  The only way is to manually add up all the scores, and that is almost certainly WP:SYNTHNOT.  Details like this would probably be more beneficial to Wikia not Wikipedia.  Also, in regards to your last part about how to finish comments.  Place   at the end of your post before saving it.   Wesley ♦Mouse 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be perfectly fine seeing this section removed. Although they provide interesting analysis for the contest, it is very rare to find written sources talking about voting history. I remember reading an article this summer from Eurovision.tv that briefly mentioned one particular country's voting history, but that's it. I say, let's leave the voting history for fan websites to analyze. Dfizzles (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think such tables at least violate the spirit of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Some prose on important observations may be appropriate if sourceable (for the history section?), but tables should be omitted. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Aren't tables a more graphical way of explaining things? With regards to WP:NOR, it's not about intention. It's a simple mathematical calculation (otherwise we would be in trouble for the results table every year). Spa-Franks (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By "important information" I mean simple statements which are sourced to reliable sources about voting patterns. Collective voting histories in tables require editors to make up methodology (e.g. how to deal with finals/semi-finals, changes in the contest format e.t.c.) which crosses the line of WP:CALC. Comparisons with results tables are not valid as they are simply regurgitating sourceable information. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hostings

 * Present in Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest and a few others. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with these sections. They ain't broken, so no need to fix them.   Wesley   Mouse  21:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're too helpful just as a single-entry tables. Perhaps any hosting should be discussed as part of the history section? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Bezençon Awards
This could do with being improved in the way we did on Eurovision by Year articles merge this and the OGAE sections together under the header "Other awards". Add a brief prose to explain what they are with a hatnote to direct to the main article. And then style them in the same way as we have on ESC by year articles too. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Winnner by OGAE members

 * Example: Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This could do with being improved in the way we did on Eurovision by Year articles merge this and the Marcel Bezençon sections together under the header "Other awards". Add a brief prose to explain what they are with a hatnote to direct to the main article.  And then style them in the same way as we have on ESC by year articles too.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you on those ones. Tony0106 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to follow the path of ESC by year articles. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Commentators and spokespersons

 * Some variations in the heading across articles. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the section header consistent across all articles, with a prose and wikitable. <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always found these sections to be a bit of pain given that far to many editors think they can add what they like here with sourcing being strictly optional. One major criticism I would make to these sections is that nothing explains what a commentator and spokesperson actually is in context to the contest - this is Eurovision jargon making such sections good for fans but not a general audience - there should at least be some introductory explanations as done at ESC 2012. I also think it would look better to have multiple simple lists rather than one huge table. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest

 * Present where applicable, such as in Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Going off the suggest ideas for both Marcel Bezençon Awards and OGAE being placed under a section "Other awards", then these too could be included into that section using the same method of brief prose to explain what the show was, and a hatnote directing to the main article for those who wish to learn more about the contest. <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

 * Discuss any other issues which don't fit under a section heading here. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that all project members be notified of this discussion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to notifying all project members of this RFC, I'll add a message about this to the next edition of the newsletter which is scheduled to the distributed in the next few days anyway. <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that will do nicely. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is time to wind-up this RfC, since it appears unlikely that there will be any further significant participation and the RfC tag has expired. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh heck... I was the main contributor too. Hope it doesn't make it look like what one user accused me off look more realistic lol.  Maybe suspend it until the new year?  Seeing as everyone is quiet in ESC-world, and things do tend to get livelier from January.   Wesley ♦Mouse 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be a good idea. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Cân i Gymru
I just read the article about Cân i Gymru. It states that it was intended, or has been proposed to be a preselection for a Welsh Eurovision entry in case Wales enters Eurovision on it's own. I'm not sure if it's true, and the article is kinda weak (no sources, bad phrasing and stuff). How much is it of interest for this project? Not A Superhero (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember a few years ago that a junior version of the show was also going to be used when it was alleged S4C was thinking to participate in JESC. I'd say yes, it should be part of this project.   Wesley ♦Mouse 14:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've placed our banner onto the article temporarily, but also noticed our collegues at ProjectWales's banner wasn't there too, so have added that on their behalf, and posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales to ask them to review the article and to let us know here if the show is in fact a Welsh Eurovision.  Wesley ♦Mouse 14:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to S4C the winner of Cân i Gymru receives £7,500 and is entered to represent Wales at the Pan Celtic Festival. Does this mean Pan Celtic Festival also comes under our scope?   Wesley ♦Mouse 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the project description says it also covers "other topics similar to but not necessarily identical to the Eurovision event concept," which the Pan Celtic Festival may fall under. What makes something similar enough to be part of the project? Sang&#39;gre Habagat (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to re-license most Eurovision logos as public domain
Currently most Eurovision logos, such as File:Eurovision Song Contest logo 2013.svg, are uploaded as non-free content which puts heavy restrictions on them including:


 * Can only be used in the mainspace
 * Have to be of low resolution
 * Have to be used in at least one article at all times
 * Can only be used where justified by a fair use rationale

Two recent developments will, in my view, allow these logos to be re-tagged as public domain using, these developments being:


 * Discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly found while discussing architectural copyright that only US copyright law is relevant on the English Wikipedia i.e. content can be marked as public domain/free content if it is public domain/free content in the US, even if it remains copyrighted elsewhere.
 * Discussion on Commons has concluded that text is not eligible for copyright in the US, nor is simple shapes such as hearts - meaning most Eurovision logos are illegible for copyright under US law. Flags within the heart have always already been public domain, meaning they are not an issue. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:142151-esc2008logo-RESIZE-s925-s450-fit.jpg for more information.

There are two conditions on re-tagging though, these being:


 * Such logos cannot be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, since over there content must be free/public domain in both in the US and in the country of origin. For Eurovision logos, the country of origin is always Switzerland where Eurovision logos unfortunately remain copyrighted - again see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:142151-esc2008logo-RESIZE-s925-s450-fit.jpg for more information. Adding to the file page of Eurovision logos should resolve this issue.
 * Logos more complicated than File:Eurovision Song Contest logo 2013.svg i.e. logos with complex graphics, pictures e.t.c. would be complex enough to be copyrighted in the US, so would still have to be uploaded as non-free content.

I know copyright can get very confusing, so I have tried to be as clear as I can - feel free to ask for me to clarify any of the above points. Beyond that, any thoughts? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case I take it there are no objections to the change? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If its change for the better and helps to improve things overall, then I'm in favour of that.  Wesley ♦Mouse 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will add it to my to-do list to implement. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started the process and have reached 1970; I will post all details once I've finished processing all the logos. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Update
I have reviewed all logos from Eurovision Song Contest 1956 to Eurovision Song Contest 2013, and tagged those which I believe to be PD under US law as so. The issue is subjective, so I would encourage others to glance through my edits to see what line I am drawing and point out where I have gone wrong. has tagged File:Eurovision Song Contest 2002.svg as possibly non-free, although ironically that was the only logo of the lot which was already marked as PD by someone. I personally believe the tag should be removed - come on; it's a serious of dots; it's PD in the US! On the sidenote, Eurovision Song Contest 1960 is the only contest with a logo missing. I will now try and correct this. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually on the 1960 logo, I will end up uploading a rubbish jpg version - could please use the same method he has done on other pages for the 1960 page. It appears there was a logo on Commons for the 1960 Contest, but it was deleted. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should Stock Aitken Waterman be added to the project?
Stock Aitken Waterman have taken part twice and I recently gave Eurovision its own section on their page - should they be added to the project? Spa-Franks (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added them to the project. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013
This voice, without reliable sources, tells that Sanremo Festival will be used as method selection for Rai in ESC, but Rai didn't confirm its method for selecting the song. I think that this voice have to be deleted... --Gce (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "voice"? Are you talking about the article itself? I've lifted the brakes a bit on the creation of these entry articles, but this article can be cut down and re-stultified as appropriate in the event of inaccuracies or excessive speculation. However, this project considers ESCToday to be a reliable source. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ESCToday is reliable, but it says, as of 8 January 2013, "It is not clear yet when and how RAI Radio Televisione Italiana, the Italian broadcaster of the event, will choose the Italian representative for the forthcoming Eurovision Song Contest, neither if the singer will be one of the contestants". And the article doesn't include any source claiming the Sanremo Music Festival was later confirmed as the Italian national selection. I guess that's Gce's point, and I agree with him. At the moment, we don't know anything about Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, except that Italy will compete in the final as part of the Big 5... --Stee888 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Then it seems to be a simple matter of the article not reflecting what the sources say, which if that's the case, the article should just be changed so it does reflect what the sources say. Speculation is fine as long as it's written in a way which makes clear that it is speculation and it is the sources which are speculating, not editors. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly Ste888; I modified the voice removing data from template and part of introduction. CT Cooper, I use the term voice for the articles (in it.wiki are called Voce and not Articolo, so I litteraly translated the abithual terms). --Gce (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The term "voice" is not used that way in English, so there is a large scope for confusion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Italian word "voce" may also translate as "item" or "entry", hence the confusion. – anemone projectors – 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eurovision Song Contest venues
Copy of deletion notification which was posted onto my talk page. Feel free to participate in the deletion discussion if you're interested. Wesley ♦Mouse 04:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eurovision Song Contest venues, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Never really saw any problem with this category, but I think overcoming the established view on this issue at CFD will be difficult. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Eurovision Song Contest 2002.svg
This logo has been tagged as public domain since 2011 - which made sense and text and simple geometric shapes do not meet the threshold of originality, and this logo is a collection of circles and text. This is in-line with the consensus established that heart shaped logos are also PD e.g. File:Eurovision Song Contest logo 2013.svg. has however slowly reverted the image back to non-free status without any justification, despite my actions which clearly register opposition. I've decided to bring it here, although I may ask for a third opinion from Commons, who deal more often with image copyright, if neccasery. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article nominations
Just a note to update everyone, I've nominated both ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 and ABU TV Song Festival 2012 for GA reviews. My real-life schedule is very sporadically busy these last few weeks. So would it be possible for a few members of this project to add those articles to their watchlist and assist with any queries that the GA Reviewer may post? Thanks in advance. Wesley ♦Mouse 13:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Update - The ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 article has passed the GA review and was awarded GA-status on 11 February 2013. A huge thanks to everyone who contributed to the article. Well done! Wesley ♦Mouse 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest by Year articles
User אומנות previously raised concerns over layout styles on all annual articles at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013. It has been suggested to move this discussion to a more appropriate talk page as we are covering more than just the one specific article. A previous debate on layout styles for annual articles was opened on 29 June 2012 and was concluded on 30 July 2012 (please refer to the link provided to see the results of the previous debate). It would be appreciated if we could have as many members of this project to participate in this new round of talks so that we can finally lay this debacle to rest once and for all. Wesley ♦Mouse 18:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wesley, there can always be some other debate in the future as It's dynamic. But of course previous debates have their majority & I still need to go through the last debates. I added some replies & wait to see if more people you invited have other views or proposals of their own. אומנות (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Styles
An idea of adding a column at the song's table of "Genre, nature, rhythm" to each song. Also explenations on the genre song's styles at the body of the text. Like "Spain, Croatia & Denmark have Celtic-music influances." Especially as this year's contest is organised by songs styles. אומנות (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We are forgetting that we are discussing articles that cover the contest only, and these articles need to provide a brief outlook on performer and song title. Details on genre, nature, rhythm, have no valuable weight to annual articles and are more beneficial to their respective song and/or national selection articles such as Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 20xx.  The fact that this year's contest is going to be organised by song styles has no bearing, as it is only a one-off as far as SVT and the EBU have stated.  So such details would be better incorporated into the 2013 article by a written prose, which has already been done.  So in my opinion, I must oppose the above proposed suggestion by the user.   Wesley ♦Mouse 18:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My position on this at the moment is the same as Wesley. Even if most computer monitors could handle it, I think that the benefits of including such content is outweighed by the problems of large tables - readers may start to be lost and overloaded with three new columns. If this does go ahead regardless, and the EBU position is accurate, this must be a once off - having columns of non-official information is likely to cause a lot of trouble - the language column is "tolerated" despite being a repeating source of controversy with sources often being unclear and inconsistent on what language an entry is in. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okey. I didn't know the article covers also the songs as solely part of the whole production. I now realize it's total approach of merely covering the sonsg as the finish & last part of the contest, & that they get more focus on the seperate articles you have for them. In this regards, I can see why the "Results" chapter is acceptable here as well. Though in the 2013 article it's already under more general "Participating countries" title. I will jusr state that I still personally don't agree but I understand the approach & hope for more views pro or against. Also, I meant 1 column with 3 kinds inside of it. additional 9th column instead of the 8 existing columns. & of-course inside the column no long descriptions. like: "Rock, Indie, Mid-tempo". I don't see how it can cause a problem for computer-monitors, as this articles are loaded with pictures & flags-symbols. But that's a side remark as I understand it's something more principal not to include this info. אומנות (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think resolution on computer monitors will be a major issues. Currently the tables in the completed ESC 2012 articles have a decent amount of white space to the right which could take additional columns if need-be, although as I've said I am hesitant on adding more info to the tables. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Results" name
Change in other ESC articles the "Results" chapter name to "Songs" - only the last 2 columns refer to scores. אומנות (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't really see a problem to solve here. "Results" intrinsically refers to the entries and the points together, so I don't think re-naming it to "Songs" would be an improvement. Overall, my position is weak oppose - "weak" because I don't see it as big issue. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So the same as I wrote above, I understand. As I see both subjects as related for the songs focus. אומנות (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Location seperation from host preperations
Regarding chronological order - The "location" chpater is full with general non-chronological host city info (population, land-area, people's nationalities). This is too excessive for host-preperations. It should be at the least seperated that general city-figures & previous hostings of ESC will appear under "location" chapter as with only general details that have no chronological order. On the other hand, the specific information about host city & chosen venue preperations for the specific ESC, will stay according to chronological guidelines under a chapter called "host preperations". אומנות (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused what you mean by this. Location and host-preparations are already separate and have been for a while now. It had been previously agreed to include a brief paragraph on the host city under the chapter "location", and in the event that a decision on the host city was to be done via a bidding phase, that such details would be sub-chapters under locations.  Information on host-preparations have always been placed under the chapter "format", and I see no reason why this needs to be changes, as the chapter title is very self-explanatory to any reader who is unfamiliar with the Eurovision Song Contest.  One needs to remember that we should not be writing or even stylizing articles based on the knowledge of a Eurovision-fan, but be writing/stylizing articles based on someone who has not seen a contest in their lives.   Wesley ♦Mouse 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I mean is to get into location details after preperations details or that it's too excessive to describe to begin with. I now see that's already concencus as well - that general country/city information is the opening of the chapter as general background & than sub-chapters of bidding-phase, so okey. אומנות (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sponsors-partners
This is just more of a comment or a question. I didn't find about it at the previous debate, However at |ESC format layout page it shows "FORMAT" - "insert Graphic Design details" & beneath "National Host Broadcaster details". On the 2011 ESC article the layout looks bit different, On the 2012 article sponsors are under "National Host Broadcaster", & on 2013 under "Sponsors" title.

So just wanted comment about the differences as I understood this 3 articles are organised already at the same manner. Also ask if on 2013 article the "Sponsors" title is expected to change to "National Host Broadcaster" on purpose only when more info will be added to the paragraph? Also wanted to propose mentioning the sponsors & graphic design companies names at the lead info of the articles, since these bodies help create & organise the event, so looks somewhat appropriate under Lead content guide. Unless majority thinks it's too much for the lead. Thanks for your attention. אומנות (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The 2013 article is in the early stages of creation though, and that needs to be made note of. As is the case every year, the annual articles get a full tidy-up and re-write once the contest is over.  This happened with the 2012 article, and after the previous layout discussions, extensive work was done to it including a revamp on layout style for annual articles once a contest was over with.  This proved to be good, and is evident in that fact when we gained our first good article classification on an annual contest article - something which had never been done before.  For now, it would be logical to leave the 2013 article as it currently looks, and then wait until the end of May 2013 - by which time you will notice the article change drastically and hopefully achieve our 2nd GA-class article (or maybe even 4th, if we manage to get the 2 ABU contest articles to GA status beforehand).   Wesley ♦Mouse 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured, that it's arranged once the contest is over. & just made note of the 2011 article as I thought it was already fixed as well to match the decided layout. Thanks. I'm also refering to mentioning production partners in the lead info, alongside the broadcaster as the main producer, as I see that in 2012 article as well as others it's not included in the lead. אומנות (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. The 2012 article was the pilot version for the new layout, following the discussions over 6 months ago.  As those agreed ideas/suggestions helped gain the first Good Article classification for this project, I then proceeded to roll out the new format across all the other articles too.  However, my personal schedules got overloaded, with volunteering at the London Olympic & Paralympic Games, and then lately heavy workloads at the pub that I started working for in November 2012.  From initial memory I think I got as far as ESC 1976, and still need to roll out the new format on article years 1977 - 2011; hence why the 2011 article doesn't look similar to the 2012/2013 ones.  Once I find spare time again, I intend to complete this task.   Wesley ♦Mouse 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary definition of Specific contest
I was explained the definition has to include the writting of "Eurovision Song Contest" as capitalized letters of pro-noun, that way it identifies this specific contest of the EBU. So with that, I still feel it's valid to add "annual international songs contest" as the definition include both the pro-noun & the descrpition of what it is, rather than the repitition of the pro-noun. That's also just like the main ESC article shows the pro-noun & than explenation: "The Eurovision Song Contest is an annual contest..." rather than "the Eurovision Song Contest "X" is the "X" Eurovision Song Contest". Unless you still think it can be confusing & not accurate? Also if anybody can come up with another idea. I realy don't know, I just wanted to suggest this here after I think I understood the first explenation, & leave this as my final suggestion to you.

Besides, I wanted to propose adding "of the Eurovision Network" to the definition, that was something more agreed on at my previous discussion about this. אומנות (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Such details are already covered in the mother article Eurovision Song Contest to which each annual article has a link to that page for readers who wish to know more about the contest and its origins. No point duplicating it on every annual article when it is already on the main one.   Wesley ♦Mouse 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will adress this, as on one hand I gave myself the mother article as an example, but I didn't explain above that I also see a point of each article in a serious as standing on it's own clear definition. I believe that on the same scale it's an independent page, it shouldn't be merely dependent on linking to another page. That's on top that it states the same pro-noun & there is a fault in a definition that uses the same words of the subject, even it is a "child" article that has a "mother", in my opinion. Though it should include a link to the main subject page regardless.


 * With that been said, I came to realize now that CT Cooper ment that the pro-noun only refers to the year (like 2013) & the "annual international songs contests" to the production number (like 58th), so found it not accurate. So I now still propose to just add the descrpitions "annual" & "international" to the 2nd appearance of the pro-noun, like this:
 * "the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 is the 58th annual international Eurovision Song Contest of the Eurovision network."
 * Or, in order to not repeat "Eurovision" so many times, mention the EBU body for complete primary definition, eventhough I know the EBU appears later in the article, but some people only read the lead or look at the tables & not read everything. So I mean like this:
 * "the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 is the 58th annual international Eurovision Song Contest organised by the EBU."
 * If there are other people, that think it's better to add this descrpitions, or have other ideas. אומנות (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but in my honest opinion rephrasing it like that is just too extensive and dull. We don't want to be overpowering and repetitive with the same details on every annual article.  That is why we wikilink certain words so that the general reader may have the option to click on that word to direct them to another article to find more in-depth information.  Although such change is being helpful to you, you also need to bear in mind will it also be helpful to everyone.  Also international makes the contest sound global, when in actual fact the contest is only within the European Broadcasting Area, so thus not as international as one would assume.  And we have to think of the most simile-minded person here - don't confuse people with words that are very ambiguous, such as "international contest".  Its like the well known proverb, less is more.   Wesley ♦Mouse 13:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides, you would be mentioning something in the lead section that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. The lead is there to summarise the entire article at a glance.  A bit like an introductory "prologue" to give a reader a brief outlook on what has already been written further down in the article.  As we don't mention the history of the contest on every annual article (with exception to ESC 1956) then I cannot see this being an improvement.  If it was something that was missing, then it would have been pointed out sooner when the 2012 article when through the GA review process by a reviewer who knows the full ins and outs on layout style, including content.   Wesley ♦Mouse 13:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's okey. I understand even better now what you mean. I also actually thought of the "international" definition if it's accurate enough. Just for clarification, I know about the frame of the contest as a Eurovision fan myself & don't need it, my proposal was intend in a way of thinking about other readers that read the specific annual articles & not the main-mother article. Still, now, after your further replies, I come to be satisfied based on your explenations as well as CT Cooper's previous explenations, without having the need for others possible replies. Thank you & CT Cooper for your thoughts & replies on all my proposals. אומנות (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OGAE Video Contest
Almost abandoned articles which could do with some attention. I don't know much about this content to be honest - others who know more are welcome to make improvements. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 08:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles
There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

{Example} in the Eurovision Song Contest {Example Year}
When I was on Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 I noticed that there was no button at the end of the infobox that helps you move from year to year clearly (like in picture shown). I went onto some of the other countries articles and it seems that it just was never added to the infobox template. Im not that great at editing templates so I wouldn't be that sure on doing it but would it be alright if someone did it? Is there any reason why this shouldn't be done? ShaneMc2010 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, they have never been included into the infobox, as they appear in navigational boxes at the bottom of their respective articles. We had started a discussion on layout reform for these articles, but only myself and CT Cooper were the only ones discussing ideas so it was suspended for the time being.   Wesley ♦Mouse 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I used to be a part of Wikiproject Eurovision but I removed myself recently enough so I never found out how the discussions ended. I would be willing to join in the discussion on this topic if that helps matters? ShaneMc2010 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main ESC Infobox has been added to numerous times by myself implementing new stuff, never really edited the Country Infoboxes though. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been editing the current 2013 country pages on a regular basis and keeping them up to date, and I think that adding this to the infobox template would make navigation from year to year easier. Pickette (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's possible, but unfortunately, requires an edit to every X in the ESC XXXX article. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind doing it if one or two other users divide up the work with me. Pickette (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can do some as well, all that needs doing is changing the 'Country' field in the infobox from,  ,   or any other variations etc, to just   (no linking) - and the infobox should do the work when the changes are made to the infobox coding. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 00:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also one more thing, for ease of use, also remove the quotation marks around the song titles, as these can be automatically added by the infobox. So the temporary look will be like this. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, let me know if I should wait for the coding to be completed before I start editing pages. Pickette (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's all, just had to put in extra coding for when countries withdraw, miss a year(s) and then comeback. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 19:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started editing 2013 and I've noticed you are doing it by countries. Do you want to divide it up a certain way? Pickette (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all of the pages have been updated now. Pickette (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been implemented now, thanks for your help, although there may be some niggles somewhere. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 14:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone through some of them to check for issues and stricken out years are still in the template. Pickette (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will this template be fixed so that non-participating years get overridden by inserting the years manually? Pickette (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I forgot about this, hopefully I'll be able to fix this soon. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 21:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

ABU TV Song Festival 2013
The date for the 2nd ABU TV Song Festival has been confirmed as 26 October 2013, and will take place in Hanoi, Vietnam - Vietnam Television will be host broadcaster (ESCKaz). Still not enough sources or further information though to enable us to create an article for it at this stage. If anyone can find reliable sources to assist in the creation of such article, could you please make a note of them on here. Thanks! Wesley ♦Mouse 02:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now created the article. Feel free to contribute to its expansion.   Wesley ♦Mouse 21:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Urgent discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013
There is an urgent discussion taking place at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in regards to how the Bulgarian participants should be enlisted as on Eurovision Song Contest 2013. It would be highly appreciated if we could have as many project members as possible engaging in the discussion, so that a mutual consensus can be achieved. Thank You! Wesley ♦Mouse 10:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhstan in Eurovision
Please could we be extra cautious in regards to Kazakhstan in the Eurovision Song Contest. Sources are saying they are renegotiating, so why have we decided to create an article for them and classifying as "unsuccessful attempts", when they have never applied to participate yet, due to the fact they know they are not EBU active members. Slow down folks, please! Wesley ♦ Mouse 19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Contest result made it to main page news.
Exactly what it says on the title. I guess it has been there since Saturday, but I only saw it now. Congrats to everybody here! Not A Superhero (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but ESC winners are WP:ITN/R, which means they are usually guaranteed to appear on the main page ever year. :) --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of OGAE article
I've done a complete rewrite of OGAE, and improved it from the poorly written version it used to be; most of which was word-for-word copy of the "about" section on OGAE's official Facebook page. It assessment was start-class, and I've upgraded it to C-class. I would appreciate for someone to have a glance and cast a second opinion on my reassessment and/or do some tweaking that may be necessary. Thank you. Wesley ♦ Mouse 15:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

MGP Junior (Denmark)
I've just come from Talk:Dansk Melodi Grand Prix, where an IP has said that MGP refers specifically in Denmark to the Junior version (MGP Junior (Denmark)), and not to Dansk Melodi Grand Prix which retains its full name. To put it short, the 'Junior' in MGP Junior (Denmark) seems to have come from somewhere but is not included in the name, I'm considering moving the article, put unsure of to where? MGP (Denmark) redirects to MGP which could be use, but can anyone else think of something else? --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 13:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the article for the adult version could be renamed "Melodi Grand Prix", and the Junior version be renamed MGP.  Wesley ♦ Mouse  15:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But the official name is 'Dansk Melodi Grand Prix', which should stay where it is. It's 'MGP Junior (Denmark)' which needs moving, it can't be moved to MGP since that is a disambiguation. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 11:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhh that is a tricky move then. Hmmm perhaps the junior one could be renamed 'Dansk Melodi Grand Prix Junior'.  But failing that, then I guess its one of those articles that we cannot rename due to technicality disambiguated pages.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  13:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Belgium @ ESC 2014
Talk:Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 11:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is way too soon for that article to be created. I will redirect it to Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest for now.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

1996 Semi-Final/Pre Qualifying Round
Why aren't the results of the 1996 pre qualifying round on all of the countries pages. At the end of the day the pre qualifying round is officially a 1996 non televised semi-final. I just think that the 1996 semi-final results should be added to all competing countries individual results. For example Russia, Macedonia, Israel and Denmark all competed in 1996 but they didn't qualify from the semi-final, so why isn't this stated in their results on their pages? User talk:Karlwhen 00:03am, 8 June 2013 (GMT)


 * The results themselves are mentioned in the main article Eurovision Song Contest 1996, and in some of the country articles that did not qualify such as Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996. But if you notice, not every country in the 1996 Contest has yet got an article in its own right.  Why that is, I have no idea.  But I suppose it is like the old proverb "Rome Wasn't Built in a Day"; which is basically a Wikipedia guideline meaning there is no rush to get everything done immediately.  Although, this is something which will probably be brought up again when I get around to re-booting the RfC on '[Country]' in the Eurovision Song Contest; and '[Country]' in the Eurovision Song Contest '[Year]'.


 * I have mentioned to a couple of Project Members regarding OGAE Second Chance Contests, purely because I've taken on the burden of extensive work on all OGAE-related article and bring them up to a near-high standard. Songs that take part in OGAE Second Chance, are songs that competed in National Finals and missed out on the winning ticket to represent their country at the main Eurovision Song Contest.  These songs that take part in OGAE could really be done with having a mention about their participation at OGAE and how well (or badly) they did. And this is something which I intend to raise at that aforementioned RfC.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  23:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Template for the Sanremo Music Festival
Hi! A few months ago, I created an infobox template to be used in the articles about each annual edition of the Sanremo Music Festival, the Infobox Sanremo Music Festival. However, the template is currently under discussion for deletion, and another user suggested to generalize it. I think the better solution would be to generalize the Infobox Eurovision national final, adding some fields that are currently missing. In particular, we should add fields to specifiy the winners of additional sections (the "Newcomers section" and the additional ones which were occasionally introduced) and the winners of the critics' prize, as well as a field to specify the name of the artist selected as the Italian entry to the ESC. Moreover, the Sanremo Music Festival is not properly a national final, since it took place even when Italy did not compete in the ESC, and it was established before the ESC itself, therefore I think the "Eurovision heart" logo should not appear in that case. If there is consesus on this, I'll start to work on "merging" these templates. Any additional comment or suggestion is welcome! --Stee888 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Other templates
Keeping on the topic of templates, we current have Template:Escyr which is → 1999 (and I have found the template very useful especially when it comes to providing links to annual pages). But we don't appear to have one for Junior Eurovision. Is it possible to have this template modified so that we can include JESC or would a new template need to be made? Also would it be possible to have one for OGAE Second Chance Contests and OGAE Video Contests? Wesley ♦ Mouse 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Location" section
I continue to have serious problems with this section. I have expressed these reservations to User:Wesley Mouse some time ago, and acted on them when I happened into the 1970 article. In a nutshell, it's this: the section is useless. A paragraph on the history of the host country/city adds nothing whatsoever to the article itself, and the usual accompanying map is nothing but article padding (besides, nothing of value is added by being able to pinpoint Amsterdam on the map of the Netherlands in relation to the 1970 contest--who needs this map?). In Eurovision Song Contest 1970 we read that Amsterdam is the constitutional capital of the country--so what? How does that affect the performances, the ratings, the results, the votes? Why is the etymology of the city of interest? Or its peak economic performance? Besides the fact that there seems to be no rationale behind which information to include and how much space to give it, there's the basic thing that, well, it's useless to the article. I think I know where it comes from: the TV shows of the contests work the same way, with a promotional film about the host city--and that's understandable, but there is no reason for us to follow that format. I think those sections should be scrapped. (And that they're in GAs doesn't really matter much: we all know that the guidelines for GA content aren't that strict.) Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think that the section isn't useless, but should be edited in the context of the time period and the contest. Why was it chosen to host? What's so special about the city that made Eurovision go there? That sort of stuff. I tried this in the articles for 1956, 1957, and 1958, if you'd like to see. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to support this, as I talked briefly about this myself here (archive), and furthermore as I totally agree with what you both claim from both aspects. As Drmies says and I wanna detail some examples: Population-figures/30% of Malmo are foreigners-origins/Malmo is the capital of Skane county/Sweden's map etc', has no value to cover the organisation and furthermore the contest itself. This belongs in Malmo's and Sweden's independent articles (as any other ESC-host city+country, which are linked from annual ESC articles). And I support what Mr. Gerbear focuses on for relevence, with adding examples that I find feat (and some are covered at the bidding phase section): Malmo as a relatively small city in order to easily devote it's central streets and hang-out places for ESC-symbols decorations and ESC-theme-parties to increase the contest's atmosphere to the city's visitors. Plus using the bridge at Mlmo's location-spot as a motive of connecting "coltures". Also a smaller venue compared to pevious Eurovisions for more personal and modest approach of the producers (making the performances more "touching" to the viewers, make the stadium-crowd phisically-closer to the performers-stage), etc'. This are things that show connection to the reasons of organising the contest in this city and venue and not in other bigger available places as Stockolm with mighty "Friends Arena" and Gothenburg. I Also add in this chance that the "OGAE" section details too much about "OGAE" backgound in the same style of the location-details - it's enough to write 1-2 sentences explenation (with also existing link to OGAE article) and go straight to detail about the results of OGAE members for 2013 contest. The same for "Marcel Bezençon Awards" - though this section is written more to the point so it's better - but still needs to be shorten a bit as well. That's what I think.
 * As a side note for where this location-details came from - I personaly saw this host country+city statistics written very widely on the Portuguese Wikipedia like already 3-4 years ago, and later saw it added to the articles here (though here in a much smaller amount and I'm not saying it's inspired by Portuguese Wikipedia). Back a few months ago I thought I'm the only one that it bothers him as I saw this location-section developed in a lot of articles here, and as I figured it was a lot of work for the people that contribute all this info. So now I join my opinion to Drmies and Mr. Gerbear. אומנות (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately The OGAE and Marcel Bezençon Awards sections were previously discussed back in July 2012 with the outcome being "No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, a new format with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing has received significant support and has been rolled out.". The current version that is in use for these are more favourable according to that RfC outcome.  We shouldn't use a table of results for these sections, without providing a written prose explaining what these tables are for - which is what we have done.  If we don't provide information, then we are not being informative or encyclopaedic towards the non-familiar person who wouldn't know what Eurovision is if it slapped them in the face.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't think there is a connection with nor an "inspiration" to our Portuguese Wikipedia counterparts. That would be pure coincidence, especially when the idea of improving the location section was mentioned by 2 editors that I can remember (one of which was myself, and I don't know a word of Portuguese).  The location section could probably do with being improved a little better, without the demography details - something which I now wish I had thought of better during the previous RfC.  The main idealogical thesis for the location section was to provide information as to why a city was chosen to host the contest?, anything notable about the venue choice, such as if it has been used previously to host Eurovision, or was there a specific reason why it was selected to host the contest.  But location is vital for the articles, we don't mention anything about the host city anywhere within the article other than in the lead section - and the lead is suppose to provide a summary of what is in the article.  So how can we summaries about a location in the lead, if it is not mentioned in more detail further in the article?   Wesley ♦ Mouse  17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1st paragraph of "Location" refers to previous hostings in Sweden+Malmo, and the "Bidding phase" section refers to the choice of Malmo+venue over other cities+venues. So basically this 2 views already provide further details for the location-summaries in the lead - when taking 2013 ESC article as an example. However, the 2nd paragraph at the "Location" + the map of Sweden at 2013 article - is what that is basically not relevent (demography but also details as: Skane municipality capital/Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is only a trainride of about 30 minutes away, and such). However, it can be added to the "Bidding Phase" that Malmo was chosen with it's venue while it's the 3rd largest city in Sweden, with adding to Stockholm and Gothenburg biddings details, that these are the 2 bigger cities. That way, this size-detail which furthers information about Malmo - becomes relevant as highlighting SVT and EBU approach to make the contest smaller and more personal than previous years. Also, if there is a statement from SVT as favoring Malmo beause of easy access and closeness to Denmark (for Danish ESC-fans for example) - the detail of Denmark-Copenhagen's distance is to be mentioned - as another factor within the "Bidding Phase" section. BTW, I referred to Portuguese-Wiki as the place I saw it, with writting I didn't think it was inspired from there, but thanks for explaining how it developed here within your hard work on the articles.


 * About "OGAE", I wrote to make a brief introduction, not to jump straight to it's voting results for 2013 ESC, and yea I saw there wasn't 100% agreement on 2012 discussion and why I thought of bringing it up. I mean like this:
 * OGAE, which was created in 1984, is one of two main ESC-fans organizations and includes OGAE sections from most countries that take part or took part in the Eurovision and other regions which operate "Rest of the world" OGAE. As of 2002, "OGAE" sections held a voting for this year's songs, with Denmark wining the concluded voting, and Norway, San-Marino, Germany and Italy finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively".
 * In other words, I think this sentences are too much: Though ESC began in 1956, OGAE began in 1984/Every year, the organization puts together four non-profit competitions (Song Contest, Second Chance Contest, Video Contest and Home Composed Song Contest). Such details and phrasing belong to the main "OGAE" article with it's entire background and operations. And as I showed above, I think the top 5 songs should be mentioned along with the text of “OGAE”'s basic introduction (Marcel Bezencon too). If it was widely agreed on the 2012 discussion to introduce tables for top songs (with flags and all songs details again), and I’m alone on that - at least I got to contribute my humble opinion. :) אומנות (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not just discussion location on the 2013 article here, but on all articles (1956 - 2014). The bidding phase section was only introduced in 2011, when several cities in Germany wanted to host the contest.  The map was implemented to show where each of the bidding cities where located (although it was not implemented by myself though).  From thereafter, (2012 and 2013) maps to show city locations of the bidding phases where continued.  This prompted the discussion during the RfC last year, and maps have been implemented across all the articles to maintain a consistent look throughout every article, seeing as there is a Eurovision-theme throughout them all.  The 2012 article achieved GA status through all of the hard work put into it by several project members, and the GA reviewer was impressed with the location section and especially the map idea to show where the cities are located - so these must be providing some sort good in terms of educational value to the non-familiar person to Eurovision.  What seems to be an issue is what is written in the prose, as at first (and probably a temporary measure until we can think of a better solution) was to add the lead section from the relevant city's article into the ESC article, and then evolve it better from there.
 * As for the other awards section, the new layout has become more favourable with members throughout the project. I don't see anything wrong with having a table showing the top 5 OGAE winners, along with the scores achieved.  It is providing factual evidence in an encyclopaedic style.  Previously, these sections used wikilinked headers to allow a reader to visit the OGAE page to find out more about that particular contest, but guidelines state we cannot use wikilinks on article section headers, so the only way around that was to evolve it into a brief prose explaining what the OGAE is about, and then show the top-5 results for that particular year.  If we were to only show the results, and then someone came along to view the article who hasn't got a clue what OGAE is about, then they would be confused and probably think the results are part of Eurovision.  Is it not wise to make things clear to someone who doesn't know, rather than use jargon that only Eurovision-fans would know?  We need to think of the general audience here, and not just ESC fans.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  11:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote that I'm using the 2013 ESC article as a good example to demonstrate an approach to each annual article with his host country+city - meaning 1956-2014 and beyond. There is some issue with the map as well. You wrote that the map "must be providing some sort good in terms of educational value to the non-familiar person to Eurovision". I see these as true - only replacing it with the key word: "non-familiar person to Sweden's-Geography - similarly to what Drmius said - as it doesn't teach about the show/organization but rather about geography, as another example to each country and it's map on an annual ESC article. Though indeed the map doesn't personally bother me as much as the things written in the prose.
 * About "OGAE" - I detailed an example that include those sentences that introduce the organization, and afterwards describing the results of this year - so the reader understands that the scores refer to OGAE's-organization and not part of Eurovision regular results. I just suggested to drop from this section contents that seems off, as: "Although ESC began in 1956, OGAE began in 1984 in Finland and the sentence about other events that aren't even related to ESC: Every year, the organization puts together four non-profit competitions (Home-video song Contest...) etc'. The scores of the top 5 OGAE songs can be easily added to the body of the text, like this: Denmark winning with 281 points, Norway finishing second with 200 points, etc'. I think it's most weird that the OGAE top 5 introduced also with their composers and lyricists, while the other ESC songs aren't. I can understand that the "Marcel Bezencon" introduce composers and lyricists since it also awards them, but still think they should be mentioned as well in a regular text body. אומנות (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that we pause here for now, as CT Cooper and I have spoken about rebooting an RfC for '[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest', which was put on hold late last year. Once that is out of the way, then we could look into reviewing the RfC which finalised in July 2012, for which we discussed layout of 'Eurovision Song Contest [year]' articles. Although consensus can change, I pretty much doubt the layout would change dramatically, especially when the current layout has gained 3 GA's on annual articles - and that is a first for this project. Changing layout dramatically could bear a major impact on those GA articles, which would subsequently need to be reviewed for GA status again. And a lot of editors worked very hard to get those articles to GA standards based on the current format. Wesley ♦ Mouse 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the issue of rebooting RfC for Countris in ESC should put on hold the progress of this discussion. It causes putting on hold 2 issues instead of at least progressing 1 while the other is on hold anyway. And of course that the suggestions here are supposed, hopefully, to strengh the article as being GA status, and are written with work of thinking about and trying to improve as possible. I see there are few people that have issues at least in regards to the "Location" and that think it needs to be changed. In regards to "OGAE" and "Marcel Bezencon" I understand that currently I'm the only one who refered to this and that it can just be expressed here as my one-humble opinion - without being changed at the article. Anyway, in my last-previous comment I feel that I managed to explain and finalize my views and my suggestions about what I meant exactly regarding shaping this matters layouts, so I personally currently don't have something to add. אומנות (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have looked (following a suggestion made above) at [Eurovision Song Contest 1956]] (and 1957). But what I see there is a summary of the history of those cities. Those cities have articles; there is no need for any information on the city in these articles especially since none of the sections in the articles I've looked at have anything at all to say on the Contest in those cities. Wesley, that some of the articles are GAs doesn't change anything. They didn't become GAs because of those sections--if I had been the reviewer and passed them, they would have been passed despite those sections. To recap: "location" information is only relevant if there is information relevant to the subject of the article. But don't take my word for it: nominate one of them for FA, where content matters are more closely looked at, and see what happens. You will also find that the flags will all be erased per MOS:FLAG, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am starting to see that the location sections should really be reflecting on information as to why the host city was allocated (such as winning the previous year's contest) and why the host city was elected. Was it because of hotel capacity to be able to hold a large number of delegates, or were there other reasons behind the decision to elect a particular host city.  The current method of repeating what is used on each respective city article may be someone monotonous and boring to the general reader.  They probably would prefer to know why a city was chosen rather than reading the history and demographics of a city.  If anyone wants to improve those sections, then feel free.  At the moment, I'm up to my neck with real-life personal issues.  Drmies, you know of one of them already, as we have spoken about it over the last year.   Wesley ♦ Mouse  16:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes: that's the kind of information that will be valuable. Take care, Wesley. There's no rush. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly also what I think as valuable, and according to the agreement, I worked earlier for some good time on it at the Eurovision 2013 article: I added some information, removed the population and municipality figures from it, and blended some remaining previous-existing Malmo-facts, in a way that is attached to show it's easier dedication to the event rather than bigger cities and easy access for the event from Denmark, which I think shows best why it was chosen and sheds valuable light of relevance to the contest's organisation. However I still think as well that the map should be removed and also the sub-section of "Bidding Phase" paragraphs should be more united, and that the 3 cities-locations table should be removed and that the information on different bidding venues with their number of seats should simply be blended into the regular prose-text that already describes the different bidding cities (just like I said in regards to the OGAE and the Marcel tables and just like what that was decided on last year's RFC - in regards to cancell the "Returning artists" table and put it in a prose). Anyway, I didn't remove the map and the locations-table, and I didn't edited further the bidding phase - as it's not clear to me if that was also agreed.


 * I also added information about the venue-inner space design within "Graphic Design" - as that also sheds valuable light on the further detailing in regards to the use of the relatively smaller space of Malmo Arena and provides the reader some learning about the creative use of the stage and the audience's function during the show. In my opinion, that also spices up the article about the show itself, and also highers dramatically the article's level in covering the contest. אומנות (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I had noticed the work and I must say I am impressed. There is a GA nomination on the 2013 article anyway (which may take some time before a reviewer gets to work on that).  Removing the map to show the candidate cities may not be as helpful though, as it is showing were the candidate cities are located.  If it was just one city selected from the start, then I suppose a removal would be fine, which is what I did with ESC 2012.  I removed the map of Azerbaijan showing the location of Baku, but kept the map of Baku itself which shows the locations of the Crystal Hall plus the two other venues that were short-listed.  In my opinion we're being informative to the not-so-geographically-minded reader, as to where the candidate venues/cities are located.  And as AxG used on the 2014 article, using blue bots for unsuccessful candidates, and a red dot for the elected host city/venue, seems to work OK too.  As for the sub-section on the 2013 bidding phase section, I'd be inclined to wait for now, as the GA reviewer will probably suggest an ideal way to unite the paragraphs together - something which was done during the 2012 GA review, or they may just say to leave it as it is.  As for the three-cities table, I wouldn't remove that, it isn't causing any harm in its current status quo, and the table method was used on the 2011 and 2012 articles too - so maintaining consistency would be the ideal option.  And on a different note, try and avoid altering other people's comments.  I noticed you alter one of mine above (albeit a spelling mistake) and I'm quite thankful to that.  But if it was someone else's comment, they may not see it as being helpful, but more of someone picking on their literacy skills.  Don't forget some people may have dyslexia, so doing such actions could be seen as mockery towards a user's illiteracy.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and what I meant is to blend the bidding table in prose consistently at all articles, as I wrote for other small tables of other sections (I'm always using 2013 ESC only as an example) and based on the same explanation - that I don't see a need in creating a table for only few details that can easily be blend into prose, especially as there are prose that already talk about the bidding cities under the "Bidding-Phase", so they are the place to add this few details of their bidding venues-names and seats-capacity. I also think it looks more appropriate for Encyclopedic article, while such small tables make the article look more like a journal stylization. That's my opinion for now, maybe the GA reviewer will think to keep the table as it is and maybe he will come up with another idea that I will prefer as well, I don't know. Maybe it will be good to try and invite GA-reviewer editors to this discussion in case they can say their opinions as well and look at others opinions, before making official checking for GA. And anyway, I already took some information that was under the "Bidding-Phase" sub-section and blend it on the general location paragraph, so there is already some change in the way that this sub-section looks.
 * And yea, I'm aware for altering issues and almost never did it during the 7 years period since I joined Wikipedia (only infew cases of uniting comments of new users that don't know how to post properly and in cases of spare space, as was here). It popped in my eye when I was on the edit window and since you added some titles to my past comments, as another kind of altering which I appreciate, I figured you will appreciate as well. So no worries. BTW, I don't even think about mistakenly putting spare space as a spelling-mistake. If I see use of wrong letters or mixing them (as what I see as miss-spelling and potentialy related to dyslexia, or not native-tongue language - as is my case in regards to English), I never touch someone elses comments and also prefer that someone else won't correct my spelling, unless it's a space-typo mistake, which is also why I assumed will be okey to correct. Thanks for the awareness. אומנות (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The small tables are merely a "quick glance" guide for those who cannot be bothered to read the entire prose, similar to how the infobox and lead section works. I know there was no small table used in the 2012 article, but why that was so I can't recall off-hand. As for inviting GA-reviewers to this very discussion, that would be impossible on the grounds that if we did, then there would be no reviewers able to carry out the GA review of the 2013 article. If they participated here then conflict of interest would prevent them from doing the GA review (per instructions at WP:GAN/I). And no worries about fixing my typing error; as I mentioned I took it all in good faith. Sometimes I have posted replies shortly after I have woken up in the morning, and even at bizarre times of night (for example 3am when I'm half-awake/half-asleep). So I do appreciate it when people are kind enough to fix my typos. Although some have done exactly that in the past, and then insulted me with sly comments such as "can you not spell?" or "can you not read?" and that to me hurts my integrity. Again, thank you. Wesley ☮  Mouse  01:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's another interesting difference-point for me, as infobox and lead sections sums up the entire article with a lot of material. The bidding-table is very small and is also added to quite small paragraphs of an already existing sub-section "bidding-phase" as a seperated text from other general location descriptions. So I see it at the same view as of other small tables that are/were following quite small paragraphs such as OGAE/Marcel/Returning Artists. If the "Location" was written as an entire section without the seperation-mean of sub-title "bidding-phase", maybe I would have been more supporting of the table - in order to avoid the reader of looking for this details in the entire "Location" text. For revieweres, I also meant possibility of involving some others, notable at their stylization experiances, when another reviewer/s-editor/s will eventually check the article, If there is/are some available.
 * And yea, I know you appreciated the alter and welcome. My input for such cases as you mentioned, is that "can you not spell?" Is legitimic-polite. As you said, people can feel uncomfortable and I prefer others to not correct mine, in cases of wrong or mixed letters. But "can you not read?" does seem off, but that depends on the situation of course - if it comes from someone who feels sly unfair-non-appreciating comment towards his comment, then that's natural. But yea, if someone asks you out of the blue or not to correct him after he said it's okey, or also corrected you, it is unpleasent. Thank you too. אומנות (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there may be confusion here. The infobox acts as a "quick glance" guide to the article, whereas the lead summarizes the entire article.  Both are doing the same informative objective, but one (the lead) is more detailed than the other (the infobox).  The reason we have bidding phase sub-headed as that is the correct method of style.  Having just one section entitled "Location" which would then contain written context of the location and unsuccessful candidate cities would be misleading the definition of what the title header is stating.  That is why we would then sub-header "bidding phase" to show that it is a part of the location title, but separate from the actual host location at the same time.  The tables again acts in the same was as the infobox does.  It provides an quick glance detail about the candidate cities, whereas the prose would cover that table in more detail.  Again this is manual of style; we're writing an article that is adaptable for the reader who is willing to read the entire article and also the reader who is probably in a rush and needs to grab basic facts at rapid speed (people such as those who are compiling questions for a pub quiz etc).  Such tables enables that kind of reader to be able to carry out quick referencing.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  17:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I understood and ment that both the infobox (which covers plenty of details about all kinds of aspects of the contest), and the lead (with its general contest-aspects written in prose), are in no doubt helpful and necessery as presenting the entire subject in general, as top independent article-content introduction-mediums, with the infobox realizing perfectly the reason to have such tables as in regards to manual style. On the other hand, like the consideration about OGAE/MBA/Returning-Artists, who already appear as small paragraphs for sub-sections, than for me the same goes for the Bidding-Phase, as providing ad hoc focusing prose about bidding places. Therefore I capture information such as venues names and capacity-seats as part of the essence this prose are written for. And with being relatively small prose under with it's own sub-section niche, the reader still see it quickly - with the text that explains on the different cities offers and other events. I will wait and look at the next days if there are more people's thoughts or the GA-reviewer in the future.
 * Side-note, It's not misleading if the other cities bidds were just under general "Location" title, as the bidding is initial aspect of how the location was eventually chosen; The fact that the "bidding phase" title is a sub-section within "location" section, shows it's part of covering location-organization process. Anyway, I'm myself in favor of "bidding-phase" sub-title and sub-section, as it specifies the reader what the following paragraphs are dealing with. I was refering to hypothetical non-exitence of this sub-bidding-title in order to provide another angle of a case in which I would have understand better the existence of special table for venues-details. אומנות (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is why we have things divided into sections. Each section covers its specific topic based upon its section title.  If there are other topics that are in connection to the same main section, then we need to include it within that section, but also divide that with its own sub-topic if it is more specific and helpful.  A prime example would be if you go to the grocery store.  You'll find an aisle for fruit and vegetables.  Within that aisle the fruit and veg are labelled separately so that you know which item is which.  You wouldn't find a store just labelling the aisle "Fruit and veg" and leave you to guess and/or search from what you were specifically looking for.  The same applies here, we have the section "location" which contains everything to do with location.  Then we also have other items which are related to the location, but are also entities within their own right - thus we create sub-headings within the main section title.  It's very complexed to try and explain properly, but it is a literacy skill in layout of content.  As for the returning artists sections used to be within a main header of its own, but using table format.  It was pointed out that "returning artists" should be grouped together with other sections covering the same topic, and thus the new section "Participating countries" was formed.  This group header then contains anything and everything the is covered by the main topic, but still separated into smaller groups such as "returning artists" etc (see WP:BODY).  If you look on that guidance itself, you will find there is a section on "body sections" (which is the main collective) and then within that there are sub-headings that are covering each respective topic so that people know what each part is referring to, whilst still grouped together in the same collective group.  See Taxonomic rank, which albeit is biological related, but the aspect that I'm trying to get across here is similar.  There's a hierarchy rank for any species, and the same applies for an article, there is a heading rank.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I wrote that I support the "Bidding Phase" as a sub-topic - in regards to clarify my point why, therefore, it cancels the need to have a seperated small-simple table. This is my point. I agree about the benefit of having sub-section with potential sub-sub sections - and because of this I don't agree about the need of additional seperated venues table, that has only 2/3 columns (like "city", "venue", "notes"), which should be easily blend into the sub-topic prose, which in turn is made to include such venues details within it's prose.


 * So taking my point about the table-format, and use it on your example: Yes, a "store" is like level-1 topic-title such as "ESC 2013"; a fruit/vegetable aisle is like a level-2 section-"Location". Now - labelling two areas in the aisle - one as "vegetable shelf" and one as "fruit shelf" is level-3 sub-section-"Bidding Phase". Now it's down to labelling singular fruit or group of same fruit units on the fruit shelf, which is the prose-paragraphs of the sub-section's, that can contain a united-paragraph information; in case of relatively more venues - having few paragraphs with each detailing about a different city with it's general offers and it's bidding-venues, their possibilities and their seats-capacity. Just like each fruit is part of a shelf and there is not much to describe about it other than writing it's name and it's vitamines for example - than this notes should be put alongside each fruit on the shelf (like paragraphs-prose). If there were a lot of different things to describe about each fruit (like the big-complex consensus-table that describes the ESC Songs titles/English translation/language/performer/score/place) than indeed there wasn't room on the "shelf" for all this and it should have been written on a seperate list - near the shelf (as a good reason for having an info-table seperated from the prose).
 * In this regards, also according to MOS:TABLES: Tables are complex form of list. /If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. /Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. /Tables which are mainly links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated.
 * Another important thing I now saw: Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article, which is the one so far that got "GA" status, just has a "Location" section - no sub-section title within and no venues-table, and Eurovision Song Contest 2011 has a tiny table that only shows 2 columns - one for city (Berlin, Hamburg...) and one for the city's venue name with only the Berlin's-tent-venue having some description, which belongs to prose as well. And beneath there are paragraphs that detail about this venus offers and difficulties with mentioning again this tent-venue in Berlin and the other venues names and their details. So in the case of 2012 ESC it's a GA-status with a totaly different location layout than these of 2013 ESC and other years, and the venues-table of Eurovision 2011 is a duplication for details that were already succefully-easily blended in the Bidding-Phase prose. אומנות (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The GA prospective between ESC 2011 and 2012 articles is a little fallace, merely because the 2011 article has never been nominated for GA review yet. So we shouldn't be using GA's to differentiate the need to have/not to have tables for the venues.  However, the 2013 article is up for GA review, and that does have a table for venues.  So perhaps we could wait and see what is said about the venue table in that reviewer, before deciding whether we should make them obsolete or not.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  13:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's exactly what I meant with 2012 and 2011 articles, there is no consistency and no example of "GA" in regards to such venues-table. Earlier you refered to GA status on the location-section on 2012 article and recent years articles with their "Location" presentation, so I meant to say that the GA isn't a factor of relevance at least in the case of venues-table status. As I wrote, I will wait for other developements in regards to this with possible other's opinions and/until the reviewer. It was just important to clarify that I'm talking about the issue of the table alone, while I'm supporting the sub-section as well, with making this short scan of MOS:TABLES + a look at previous ESC articles to compare their venues-table status - after I did further checking yesterday. And I also just add that the 2013 ESC article is still covering quite a fresh-event, that people keep adding a bunch of things to, so I hope the article will be stable enough by the time the GA reviewer start checking it. אומנות (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But each ESC article is bound to be different from the other, as no two ESC's are the same. And so each article will have some differences. Some will have tables some will not. Most recent ones have had bidding phases, others have not. Like I said, we ideally need to see what happens with the 2013 GA review. If the reviewer finds no issues with a venue table and passes the article for GA status, then that would be based on how that article for that particular year has been presented. I'm already in the progress of reworking the 2010 and 2011 articles, so that we will at least have something to compare to. But Rome was not built in a day, I am working on those articles as well as other articles, and working on the project newsletter, and juggling real life matters too, so nothing will happen immediately. There is no deadline to get these things completed. Patience is a virtue! Things happen for a reason. Articles are stylised differently from the other for a reason. Having a table on venues which acts as a "quick glance" is not causing that much of a problem. Just like genres of music/film, people too are in genres. You have the avid researcher who will read every article word for word. Then there is the speed reader, who will read an article but concentrate for specifics. Then you have the pub quiz researcher, who will be in a rush and needs to find pin-point details at quick speed. Tables, leads, infoboxes... these all help that latter genre of person. Whilst at the same time, having more detailed information in prose format also assists the former genre of person. All articles need to be adaptable to fulfil the needs of every genre of person, depending on their circumstances of visiting Wikipedia. Wesley ☮  Mouse  23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree each article has it's own content features but there are common format things which for them we have the likes of RFC's-format-discussions. I don't think an encyclopedic article shoulf feat to such "speedy" reader that only wants to pin-point items, but that sub-section paragraphs are already enough for presenting such simple kind of data for a rushed-reader. For me, weather it's only 2 possible-venues like in 2012 article, and weather it's more venues in more cities like 2013/2014 articles, it should be presented as "significant items" with their figures within bidding-phase prose flow, as a simple-non complex data and according to the way I capture MOS:TABLE. That's my general-formating view, regardless of how me, you and others keep working on other certain ESC articles. I understand that your opinion is that it should be provided within both prose and additional table, like at the current situation of the 2011 article. I still see it as an unecessery duplication. It may also be good to consider at least having a "Blue-dot" list of venues of a certain city under a paragraph that deals with a certain city, or simply a list under one bidding-phase paragraph if there aren't many different cities and venues. This will also be already much better and more feating to such info, rather than a table, in my opinion. Anyway, the 2013 article only mentiones generaly bidding-cities withing small paragraphs and mentiones the venues and their capacity only within the seperated small table, so currently the 2013 article bidding-phase only serves the very-rushed-reader without being adapted for the reader who want to see full items names as part of the prose. And that was also my point, that since the article is still not stable and there are still big discussions here about layout and making big changes (such as I did only last week to the "Location" and "Graphic design" content on 2013 article), that there is no rush and no deadline for submitting an official GA check, and that I myself will patiently wait in the meantime to see if there are more opinions and offers for improvements, before the GA reviewer will check the article on his own. אומנות (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this matter unfortunately. I have tried to put across why such a table is just as important, but perhaps I'm not wording my view properly.  Every article does need to be adaptable for every genre of researcher that visits Wikipedia.  That is why you will find on the biggest part of articles tables within sub-sections that are giving pin-point briefings whilst at the same time a more detailed outlook of that table in prose format.  That is all what manual of style is about, creating an article that is in detail but also in brief (leads, infobox, tables) to provide easy to find data for those who are in a rush without having to waste their time reading a prose just to find exactly what it was that they were looking for. To put it into another perspective.  If you went to the shop and couldn't find what you where looking for, what would you do?  As the shop assistant to point you in the right direction.  The venue table is acting like that shop assistant to point the viewer who is short for time and in a rush to find exactly what they are looking for and in brief detail without them having to browse through paragraphs of prose just to find what they wanted.  Also I think you may have misunderstood MOS:TABLE too.  Plus this isn't an RfC discussion (that is taking place below for a different matter).  RfC's are for resolving disputes or suggestions within project how to better improve a series of articles.  This actual thread was really covering maps within the location section, not the venue table itself.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your view in favour of the table as adding pin-point ability for the speedy-reader is clear and understandable. I still have another view with the way I see the "shop-aisle-shelf" example as specific enough, and with MOS:TABLE I also personaly find that to fall under the category of something that is prefered to be only within prose or at least "Blue-Dot" list. It doesn't contradict that we understood each others claims and different view-angles. And I know this discussion isn't an RFC, I was stating the fact that on this page there is an RFC which shows that things such as layouts are still discussed, as well as layout-disagreement on this actual-thread. Also, that Drmies opened this thread for talking about chosen-location info and the map, doesn't limit someone elses adding about the table that's also within location, and we discussed that as well. It doesn't matter from what the discussion was opened, but concluding from it what we agree and what we disagree about. Therefore I was thinking the same, we simply agree to disagree and I will wait and see how it developes with others inputs, and who knows? Maybe I will also change my own view in the future. אומנות (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting how 2020 Summer Olympics article which is in candidate cities mode uses blue dot format. Yet so did the earlier stages of 2012 Summer Olympics and 2016 Summer Olympics articles.  Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics which was the original content of the 2012 Olympics article after winning the bid, uses a mixture of prose and tables - and interesting that the article is a Featured Article.  So it would seem that there is no harm in using a mixture, and that there could be some misinterpretation of what MOS:TABLE is actually stipulating.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  21:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are lots of interesting differences with the fact that the tables on 2012 Summer Olympics and 2016 Summer Olympics include more complex data of "round 1", round 2"-"round 3" and so on, for few stages of bids number-figures-comparison which justify a bunch of columns - exactly the kind of thing MOS:TABLE is highlighting for obviously benefiting in a table format. Other tables are even much more complex, such as crossing number-figures of certain sports-field competitions on each day of the olympic (similarly to full-scores table from each country in ESC vote). And as you mentioned, there is blue dot list and not a table - for an even very big items data such as all 100's of countries with their flags and their competitors number-figures. The ESC candidate-data is few venues within maximum few cities in a specific country + merely each venue's capacity info, and another column for notes (such as when the venue itself was opened, which is anyway info that is non-relevent for the specific ESC event and should be removed). The fact there are independent articles for "bids for a certain olympic" year shows the amount of length and complexity of such process compared to Eurovision, as well as that they are being handled over years-time like the already ongoing 2020-process. And in that context, the bidding-phase prose on olympic articles, as much bigger and detailed with lots of "significant items", is hard to pin-point within it, compared to the ESC's articles bidding-prose for already few bidding cities within one country over few months bidding process. There may as well be misinterpretation in regards to the blue-dot format, maybe I didn't explain properly that I already also support lists of certain city venues alongside each city's paragraph rather than a table at the bottom of the entire prose - therefore I already suggested it as a still better option for 2013 ESC.


 * Besides this, I also clarify that even in cases there are simple 2-3 coloumns tables with only few significant-items (also on olympic and other events articles) or small lists to follow a small prose, then I also personally won't support that; As I also wrote in addition - and regardless - of how I capture MOS:TABLE and mixture of prose and tables+lists, this remains my personal view in regards to the 2013 ESC content and other ESC venues tables. I also don't see it as causing direct-harm, but an unessecery duplication that doesn't have any obvious benefit for the reader compared to bigger-complex tables that with them I see obvious benefit. This currently remains my understanding of the policies, but eventually also my regardless-personal opinion. So if such ESC-table will eventually be found as feating well to wikipedia standards and pass GA and even FA reviews, then fine, it will just stay as my personal view. אומנות (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to sound strange, but you have just contradicted your original theory with the statement about the Olympic tables being a comparison between figures etc. That is exactly what the tables on ESC bidding venues is doing.  They are showing a comparison between each venue (I.E. seating capacity for each venue) in the same way the Olympic have done.  Sure there is nothing wrong to mention in more detail about venues using prose.  But the tables are also there as a quick comparison guide too - something which MOS:TABLES states can be done.  But another thing that is worth noting too.  MOS:TABLE is only a guideline, it is not a policy.  Guidelines can be flexible at the discretion of a project - which is something that WP:IAR stipulates.  WP:IAR is the fifth core pillar of Wikipedia, and the pillars are more important than guidelines.  IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  This would apply here.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean about the seats-capacity comparison. I meant that it's still simple comparison with only one row for each venue with one capacity-column-data, and mostly for 4-5 venues items, while the olympics bidding table compares different locations + 3 or more rounds-numbers-figures for each - so it creates complexity of cross-comparison between both location-rows and round-columns (which is what that also creates 5 or more columns, compared to the 2-3 note-sentences coloumn for the ESC venues). Therefore I see a very figuratively-interesting comparison benefit via those olympic tables-format, while seeing the writting of few ESC venues with their one-capacity mention as already something noticable enough within those simpler ESC bidding-prose. But again, in case of few ESC bidding-cities with each having few venues of it's own on offer - then I see an option via creating seperated paragraph for each city and maybe a blue dot list for each city's venues - under each such paragraph. Furthermore, come to think of it now, for such special case, I would see interest and benefit in ESC-venues-table, if it would concentrate each bidding city in a row - with putting it's different venues and their capacity-numbers under coloumns such as "venue 1", "venue 2" and possible conclusion with a last-coloumn to write "overall venues offers" for each city (like "4" venues at the end of the row for "Berlin", "5" for "Hamburg", etc'). Then, this will be a cross-comparison between all the different cities venues + between each city's venues in each city-line - simlarly to the olympic bidding-rounds for each location and similarly to ESC-scores table that croses country's voting to each other with full scores data. So this is another positive input I can think of from my view in favour of a table. Anyway, as you said, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree in regards to the venues-capacity table. But of course that regardless of my opinion and my view I also wish for the article to gain "GA", with or without this table. אומנות (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's simple or complex, it is still comparing data, for which WP:WHENTABLE stipulates that a table should be used. Regardless of how many columns is being used. The number of columns would be dependant on what data you was wishing to compare to the general reader. Having it all in written prose would make it more difficult to compare the information. However the current method has a prose which mentions about the cities that applied to be candidate cities, with the table showing the capacity data for simple comparative figures - again something which WP:WHENTABLE advises that such a table would be more useful. The type of table used is one similar to filmographies (as shown in the list of tables types at WP:WHENTABLE).

According to the guidance... "tables are a way of presenting links, data, or information in rows and columns." The venue table is presenting information on venues. Tables might be used for presenting mathematical data such as multiplication tables, comparative figures, or sporting results." The venue table covers both of these factors, in that it is presenting information/data in a comparative manner.  The guidance also says "sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list."  Emphasis on "may", meaning it would be at the discretion of a project, which complies in-line with the fifth core pillar of Wikipedia.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  22:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A sentence such as "sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose or list", applies also for a case of division, and of course it will mostly be in a discretion of a project - most Wikipedia articles are within project-frames and so I expressed my view here for other involved-editors thoughts-views. And currently this table isn't that common on ESC articles plus 2013 ESC table that still contains city/venue name/notes, without seats-capacity, which was also what I meant with better to wait with the GA nomination until the article will be further shaped, even if it will pass with just examining the article's general look and not looking closely at the content, as Drmies mentioned in regards to GA examine. I gave examples when I'm supporting tables as cases of cross-info I demonstrated, and when I don't find it to be as something that improves and maintains the article - and that's in regards to the fifth pillar, where you think the table improves and maintains so for you it's better to use it. So we will apparently stay as understanding each others views but still different-opinionated regarding this. אומנות (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These tables will be uncommon on ESC articles, as the bidding phrase scenarios only began as early as 2011 when Germany started the trend with loads of candidate cities. Azerbaijan continued that trend in 2012 when they had candidate venues, albeit for an already elected host city (Baku).  Then Sweden continued the trend for a third year, and nor Denmark for a fourth consecutive year.  So it could either be a passing trend with Eurovision seemingly taking on a Olympic-style role opting for "candidate cities", or this trend could become a more common factor for years to come.  But either way, having a table for comparison aspects is more logical and more apparent according to WP:WHENTABLE.  If some of the tables are missing capacity data, then be bold and add a capacity column to those tables with the missing data.  Although the 2012 article doesn't have a venue comparison table as we only knew at the time the capacity numbers for one of the venues (and now two, if we include the Crystal Hall), that is why if you read the bidding phase section for 2012, only one venue mentions capacity, and that is why no table was included - but I see nothing wrong in adding one now if we researched the capacity data for all the venues that were being considered.  And the 2013 article did have a column originally with capacity data, not sure when, why, what for, and by whom that column was removed.   Wesley  ☮  Mouse  14:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When you refered to this capacity-seats as a good reason for such table and after nominating 2013 ESC for GA, I refered to this as a note for advise for you to increase the article to pass GA status with developing the current table that you support, as it's currently there. I won't develop this table as I don't support it's existence, also while I don't know about others opinions besides yours and mine to see if others don't support it too. Therefore I refered to it in this discussion to begin with to see the project and other editors general opinion, and precisely after I was bold to develop other location things and another content that I support myself and saw was agreed by all participants here. No matter if the bidding-phase is still new and therefore not common, and no matter if all venue-tables that are on ESC articles were already including capacity, I don't support it either way. I don't currently have something to add that won't be another repitition of what I wrote before, so unfortunatly we stay divided on that, and hopefuly more people in the future will express their opinions. אומנות (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)