Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:58, 2 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Eurovision and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Eurovision Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Archives

RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles

This RfC has now closed. Please see the summary section for details of the outcome. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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, as well as Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and so on. Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 restart an RfC on the country ones as well (the previous RfC can be found in the talk archives. 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. 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. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Add comments here.

Infobox

Add comments here.

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. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably standardize what goes in the history section, and some sort of outline on how it should be written, just for consistency's sake. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you on that one Mr Gerbear. I've posted a few suggestions throughout this RfC. Wesley ☮ Mouse 14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Records

Sometimes appears, as in Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very trivial and unnecessary. If it can't be incorporated into the history section then it's probably not worth mentioning at all. Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That probably would be better to be fair. It would help to expand the history section. And some articles do not even have history sections, so this approach would help in creating such sections too. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the records section, at least in the state that it exists in that Ireland article. Not only is it not sourced, but it's actually just trivia. Nothing listed is actually a "record" that Ireland holds. Relevant facts about the country's participation can be in the history section. Off the top of my head, I can think of Greece placing in the top 10 since the introduction of the semi-finals in 2004 (with the exception of 2012) as the type of trivia that would be okay; that fact is also well publicized. Things like Ireland averaged 74 points per contest are way too trivial. Grk1011 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants

Should incorporate links to individual country by year articles. Also, a limit on the amount of pictures that get added? Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links yes I agree. Pictures, could we not have a "gallery" section towards the end of the article, and place them all in there? Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to include pictures in this section. Have one or two pictures of participants from noteworthy years in the history section. The rest can be on the individual country by year pages. I don't think these haphazardly placed pictures add much to the article anyway. Grk1011 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the images. I had tested something on Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest by placing the images into a gallery section, purely for comparison reasons. But even I think that adopting that option would be overzealous. What's that phrase? "Less is more". Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should definitely be some sort of limit to pictures. There is a golden ratio of pictures to content, and the only pictures that should be added are those that support content. the two sean 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetwosean (talk • contribs) [reply]

Voting history

About the "Most points given" and "Most points received", I think that we should make it clear what points are given and how. I am personally in favor of separating completely points given in finals and points given in semifinals, and I'm not too strongly opposed to keep only points given in finals.

One think I'm completely in favor is removing anything that goes like "NOTE: The tables with points from 2004 include points awarded in both finals and semi-finals where the highest point from the final/semi-final is picked." I think this metodology is kind of arbitrary and the results are unclear. Not A Superhero (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had mentioned on the old RfC for these that the voting history can be a bit of a hindrance at times. They are constantly a target of IP vandals, and when they do alter them, then we are having to manually re-calculate the voting history (which is now in its 58th year) and goes against WP:SYNTHNOT, which then makes the calculation original research as there is no actual website that contains these overall voting results. And also it was pointed out last time by CT Cooper that they violate the spirit of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. So I still support a full removal them, unless someone can convince me that they are more valuable than a headache and are not violating any guidelines. Wesley♦Mouse 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this website suffice for a source? I think that it's best to keep this information in the article as it is valuable. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohh something like that would mean that we're not infringing WP:SYHTHNOT, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. I wonder if there is a way that we could protect just these sections from the grubby hands of vandals? Wesley♦Mouse 13:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrGerbear, that website you provided has been an absolute godsend of help. All this week I've done an extensive exercise across all the country articles and updated the voting history sections accordingly using the database from that website. So if any of them change between now and the next Eurovision, then we are safe to say they're vandalism edits. I've also been bold and simplified the section headers for these sections. All of them used "Voting history (19xx - 20xx)". Why have include a chronological period in the section header? A simple "Voting history" as a title is very self-explanatory to show what that section is all about. A very brief prose that I have used (for example "As of xxxx, 'Country' voting history is as follows..."). That allows us to be flexible with the years, and removed the need to include years in the section header. I've also modified the tables themselves, and the look much better than they previously were. So I am now more inclined to support these sections existence. Although perhaps a short paragraph to explain a bit about them would be an even bigger improvement. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Moved from Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest#New Voting Design. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if we could replace the current voting section on the UK's page with the section bellow that I've designed. The design I've created is minimal and takes up less space, it is optional to look at with a "Hide" or "show" feature and also includes all vote to and from the UK since the 1950's, unlike the current design which only starts from 1975. I believe we should not ignore votes from 1957-1974 as they are a crucial part of the UK's voting history. This new design also shows how the UK's voting patterns have changed over the decades. This design is also perfect for years to come. Please look at the design fully before deciding. :) Karl (talk) 12:37 (BST/GMT) 18 July 2013.

In the Grand Final, the United Kingdom has received the most points from;
Rank	Country	Points	1950's	1960's	1970's	1980's	1990's	2000's	2010's
1	Ireland	216	X	7	42	50	43	53	21
2	Switzerland	206	5	34	49	55	55	6	2
3	France	189	1	15	60	45	62	5	1
4	Austria	188	3	7	44	63	59	12	0
5	Belgium	180	2	13	57	37	64	6	1
5	Germany	180	0	8	70	50	34	18	0
6	Portugal	176	X	3	56	51	51	12	3
7	Luxembourg	172	1	26	59	65	21	X	X
8	Sweden	168	0	15	36	67	45	4	1
9	Norway	157	X	20	59	52	21	4	1
10	Netherlands	150	6	17	54	36	32	5	0
11	Spain	147	X	14	39	47	32	11	4
12	Israel	145	X	X	39	45	50	10	1
13	Finland	141	X	14	51	49	19	8	0
14	Denmark	140	1	11	10	56	46	13	3
15	Turkey	129	X	X	9	61	44	9	6
16	Italy	124	0	10	37	38	29	X	10
17	Malta	121	X	X	18	X	39	52	12
18	Yugoslavia	95	X	7	53	25	10	X	X
19	Greece	85	X	X	16	23	25	19	2
20	Monaco	83	2	10	71	X	X	0	X
21	Cyprus	80	X	X	X	21	39	16	4
22	Croatia	64	X	X	X	X	52	12	0
23	Estonia	44	X	X	X	X	25	14	5
24	Slovenia	38	X	X	X	X	25	11	2
25	Poland	34	X	X	X	X	25	9	0
26	Bosnia and Herzegovina	33	X	X	X	X	22	11	0
	Hungary		X	X	X	X	32	1	0
	Iceland		X	X	X	1	28	2	2
27	Russia	32	X	X	X	X	18	10	4
28	Macedonia	25	X	X	X	X	10	10	5
29	Latvia	24	X	X	X	X	X	17	7
30	Lithuania	22	X	X	X	X	5	14	3
31	Romania	20	X	X	X	X	12	5	3
32	Bulgaria	19	X	X	X	X	X	7	12
33	Slovakia	17	X	X	X	X	10	7	0
34	Albania	16	X	X	X	X	X	9	7
35	Armenia	9	X	X	X	X	X	7	2
35	Ukraine	9	X	X	X	X	X	6	3
36	Morocco	8	X	X	X	8	X	X	X
	San Marino		X	X	X	X	X	6	2
	Serbia		X	X	X	X	X	8	0
37	Azerbaijan	7	X	X	X	X	X	0	7
38	Andorra	6	X	X	X	X	X	6	X
	Belarus		X	X	X	X	X	4	2
	Czech Republic		X	X	X	X	X	6	X
39	Moldova	5	X	X	X	X	X	1	4
40	Georgia	3	X	X	X	X	X	0	3
41	Montenegro	0	X	X	X	X	X	0	0
41	Serbia and Montenegro	0	X	X	X	X	X	0	X

In the Grand Final, the United Kingdom has given the most points to;
Rank	Country	Points	1950's	1960's	1970's	1980's	1990's	2000's	2010's
1	Ireland	240	X	3	52	45	68	42	30
2	Sweden	175	0	2	26	37	51	44	15
3	Germany	168	0	8	32	63	27	28	10
4	Switzerland	165	5	9	42	64	35	0	10
5	Denmark	119	4	4	3	42	10	33	23
6	Greece	118	X	X	5	21	7	65	20
7	France	113	2	9	55	14	12	19	2
8	Israel	110	X	X	31	30	34	12	3
9	Norway	109	X	1	23	29	25	31	0
10	Belgium	108	2	5	47	28	14	9	3
11	Austria	99	2	10	11	29	36	9	2
12	Turkey	94	X	X	1	16	17	49	11
13	Malta	93	X	X	9	X	39	33	12
14	Luxembourg	87	1	3	46	31	6	X	X
15	Netherlands	72	2	3	34	2	24	1	6
16	Cyprus	71	X	X	X	25	30	16	0
16	Spain	71	X	4	25	16	11	6	9
17	Yugoslavia	69	X	6	16	42	5	X	X
18	Iceland	68	X	X	X	0	48	14	6
19	Finland	64	X	8	31	13	0	12	0
20	Italy	62	2	9	36	5	3	X	7
21	Monaco	55	0	9	46	X	X	0	X
22	Estonia	53	X	X	X	X	23	26	4
23	Latvia	37	X	X	X	X	X	37	0
24	Portugal	36	X	0	15	8	13	0	0
25	Lithuania	34	X	X	X	X	0	21	13
26	Russia	33	X	X	X	X	5	15	13
27	Ukraine	30	X	X	X	X	X	20	10
28	Poland	18	X	X	X	X	12	6	0
28	Romania	18	X	X	X	X	0	6	12
29	Slovakia	16	X	X	X	X	10	6	0
30	Croatia	15	X	X	X	X	15	0	0
31	Hungary	12	X	X	X	X	10	2	0
32	Moldova	10	X	X	X	X	X	2	8
33	Azerbaijan	5	X	X	X	X	X	3	2
33	Bulgaria	5	X	X	X	X	X	5	0
34	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4	X	X	X	X	0	4	0
35	Serbia and Montenegro	3	X	X	X	X	X	3	X
36	Albania	2	X	X	X	X	X	1	1
37	Armenia	0	X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Belarus		X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Georgia		X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Macedonia		X	X	X	X	0	0	0
	Morocco		X	X	X	0	X	X	X
	Serbia		X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Slovakia		X	X	X	X	0	0	0

In the Semi-Finals, the United Kingdom has given the most points to;
Rank	Country	Points	2000's	2010's
1	Lithuania	58	22	36
2	Turkey	49	34	15
3	Cyprus	46	39	7
4	Ireland	36	20	16
5	Malta	31	19	12
6	Denmark	30	18	12
6	Sweden	30	19	11
7	Iceland	27	20	7
8	Finland	22	16	6
8	Romania	22	10	12
9	Greece	20	12	8
10	Bulgaria	17	6	11
10	Netherlands	17	5	12
10	Portugal	16	13	3
11	Hungary	15	5	10
12	Israel	14	9	5
13	Latvia	13	13	0
13	Ukraine	13	7	6
13	Albania	12	12	0
	Bosnia and Herzegovina		11	1
	Estonia		1	11
14	Russia	10	0	10
15	Poland	9	4	5
16	Armenia	8	8	0
	Serbia		5	3
	Serbia and Montenegro		8	X
17	Norway	7	7	0
18	Belgium	5	0	5
18	Moldova	5	5	0
19	Azerbaijan	4	0	4
20	Switzerland	2	0	2
21	Austria	1	0	1
21	Georgia	1	0	1
22	Andorra	0	0	X
	Belarus		0	0
	Croatia		0	0
	Czech Republic		0	X
	Macedonia		0	0
	Monaco		0	X
	Montenegro		0	0
	San Marino		0	0
	Slovakia		0	0
	Slovenia		0	0

X denotes that the country giving or receiving points did not compete in that decade.
Andorra, Czech Republic, Montenegro and San Marino are not in the points given by the United Kingdom in the Grand Final grid as they are yet to qualify to a Grand Final.

Very strong oppose: The voting history should only show a top-5 per previous consensus that has been in place for many years now, and has worked perfectly throughout. Collapsible boxes in articles are not to be used (see MOS:COLLAPSE) unless they are consolidating information already covered within articles, such as the ones used to show split results on Eurovision by Year articles. The main results are kept uncollapsible, whilst the split results are collapsed. On articles such as these, the voting history is not mentioned within the articles, and therefore hiding the content in collapsed boxes would be infeasible. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strongly Agree: Why should it only remain top-5? People are getting very confused by the current voting sections because;

They do not include years between 1956-1974
They can't find out how many points the United Kingdom has given to another country that is not in the top 5.

The grid design that has been offered is highly detailed and explains what countries gave and received which points within which decade. This design that has been offered gives the reader more information then the lack of which is currently being offered. Whether it's collapsed or not, I think your "dumbing" the readers by refusing to have this... It's like your saying they're too stupid to open or hide a box. "On articles such as these, the voting history is not mentioned within the articles", then can we change this so it is? -_-! Karl 16:28 18 July 2013 (GMT/BST) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Karl, I am not "dumbing" a reader. It is manual of style policy, there's no ifs and buts about it. The guidelines state it cannot be done that way. And a top 5 is by far easier to have rather than "padding" the article with the entire voting history. If we expand it further, then we're giving the vandals more to vandalise. Are you prepare to start tidying up after them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? The top 5 is precise and sufficient on these articles - which has been the case ever since this project has been in operation. Also your proposal stipulates you agree anyway, so why emphasis it further by stating "very strong agree"? Without sounding pragmatic here, but there are strong signs of incompetence or lack of grasping guidelines/policies which are put in place to aid us in how to right the perfect article. Deviating away from them (in the way that your proposal would be doing) would only make things worse, not better. Don't fix what isn't broken. Did you read any of the policy that I linked to above? If not, then please read it carefully at MOS:COLLAPSE. Also the voting history on ALL articles cover voting from 1957 to present day. I know this, as I spent hours and hours tidying up all the voting tables to show the correct voting history from 1957 onwards. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hostings

Present in Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest and a few others. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Bezençon Awards

As I wrote under at the OGAE section and as I wrote above at the ESC annual articles at the location section - presenting only brief-necessery background on this organization, after and in relation, to country's achievements in one or more of it's awards-categories, and blend it as a paragraph alongside OGAE paragraph, split public/jury results paragraph under sub-section "Achivements", and alongside sub-section of "Incidents" - and put all of this under the scope of section "Country's participation in public" or "Country's participation in public and media". אומנות (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the history section on some articles (which could do with being expanded to all articles to be fair). But how about a new section "Participation", which we could then sub-section "contestants" into that, and also "Other awards" as a sub-section which will allow us to amalgamate into prose format all the other awards such as MBA, OGAE (if agreed) and Congratulations: 50 Years. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is my opinion in regards to "Conrgatulations", it's independent with it's own wide public vote as in every annual ESC + It's inclusion of previous popular songs to compete again for a title a-la "champion of champions" furthers it as more impressive than an annual ESC. On the other hand, "MBA"-"OGAE" are other "token of appreciation" in parallel to each annual contest that has it's own public-jury voting. In other words, I see "50's congratulations show" as it's own glorified ESC edition, and "MBA"+"OGAE" as an addition to each annual ESC edition. Therefore I'm not sure if it's not better mentioning a country's achievement at "Congratulations" at the same general section of contestants through the years, or blend it with Marcel and OGAE.

I personaly don't mind calling the section "Participation", but I still think the sub-section should be than called "Public and Media" with including all kinds of acceptance - split public/jury results and I also add now about "betting-odds" (if betting agencies managed to predict a winning country in a certain year, with info about it's odd-relation-numbers according to amount of gamblers - there are articles on ESCToday every year, such as about Sweden before 2012 ESC and few that followed predictions for Denmark before 2013 ESC), also the "Commentators" table is aprropriate as it shows which TV-stations provided media-reviewers that supply explenations and their own opinions to the public during the broadcast. And then another paragraph for OGAE/MBA and other votings. Since I view the other awards as one paragraph within few paragraphs of covering public and media aspects, I think that "Other Awards" title should be sub-sub-section-level and also be called "Other Titles". I think of the Marcel Awards as more appreciation achievemnts in reagrds to acceptance, rather than material awards, and I see a "title"-achievement even more as reflecting in regards to the OGAE. אומנות (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winnner by OGAE members

Example: Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a fan poll doesn't seem that important to highlight in such a way. Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I think the OGAE sections are just as important of a section as the rest of the Eurovision-related material. It did seem to be in favour by some at the last RfC that this could do with being improved in the way we did on Eurovision by Year articles merge this, the Marcel Bezençon and the Congratulations:50 Years 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. Besides, some of the songs from national selections go onto OGAE Second Chance Contests and furthermore win those contests. So we could do with finding a way to tie-together the two (Eurovision/OGAE). And IMHO the only way we could do that is by using the "country" articles. Would be a shame to see all that hard work on improving the OGAE articles go to waste. Wesley♦Mouse 02:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The Marcel Bezençon awards and the Congratulations: 50 Years event are created/endorsed by the EBU, while the OGAE voting is just a fan poll for fans and who they pick as the "winner" is irrelevant and pretty trivial. The other contests OGAE organizes are as notable as the various fan contests organized across the internet. Pickette (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are incorrect there Pickette, believe me I should know - I have been spending long hours researching these so that I can get the respective articles improved to a high standard. The Marcel Bezençon awards have been around since 2002. In 2002/2003 OGAE were responsible for awarding the "Fan Award", which was endorsed by the EBU. Since then the award recipients have been decided by the international press, the commentators, and a jury. Also OGAE is recognised by the EBU as a trustworthy organisation. The inclusion of OGAE material is just as important to country articles as they are to the annual articles - and with a lot of significant support from a lot of project members in the past in regards to the inclusion on annual articles. Wesley♦Mouse 14:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only include the 2002/2003 Marcel Bezençon Fan award then as that is the only time the OGAE voting was actually recognized as an achievement of some kind. It has since been discontinued for whatever reason. I don't support the inclusion of various OGAE factoids across the Eurovision articles. Just because the EBU has recognized the OGAE as a trustworthy organisation for fans doesn't make everything they vote on or do notable and relevant. Pickette (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the simple fact that OGAE are voting on Eurovision songs that are mentioned on Eurovision articles means they should be ignored!? Have you forgotten Pickete that we are discussing Country in the Eurovision Song Contest articles here? Marcel Bezençon has its own article, so if we're to no longer include OGAE, then we should no longer include Marcel Bezençon either. We shouldn't be favouring one over the other - they are both as equally recognised as the other, and they are both in relation to Eurovision, which is the main factor here. OGAE is just as notable as the Eurovision Song Contest - so to exclude something that is notable from an article is just utterly pathetic. I think one needs to familiarise themselves with WP:GNG guidelines. Wesley♦Mouse 15:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before saying that OGAE is as notable as the ESC (which I don't follow: how does a fan organization match the contest in notability?) are there multiple, third-party, non-Eurovision-centric sources that cover the OGAE? Only then can they be notable enough for inclusion. You also say that OGAE is trustworthy to the EBU, but you link to an OGAE page. We need third-party sources to verify everything. Re-read WP:GNG, sources must be ""independent of the subject".

Try taking yourself out of the Eurovision bubble: would you think the OGAE is notable? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question regarding third-party sources Gerbear, yes. ESCToday, ESCXtra, and other Eurovision websites all mention and have links to OGAE clubs. And one only needs to search for OGAE on Eurovision.tv to find that they too show support for OGAE by reading the numerous articles published by the EBU. We have also used OGAE sources for citing material such as confirmed participation on Eurovision by Year articles throughout the years. As for the other contests, OK they are organised by a "fan club", but those contests contain songs from national preselections, and unless I have misunderstood the meaning of a national selection for the last god knows how many years, then there is the connection between OGAE and Eurovision, which the two could do with being tied together to add knowledge to the general reader. And the only way to do that would be via Eurovision articles and vice versa. Take for example 2012 contest. Pastora from Spain went to Baku with the song that won the national selection, although she did not win in Baku. Yet on the otherhand, one of the other songs from the same national final went onto the OGAE Second Chance Contest and won that. Notability that one of Spain's songs from their preselection process (which are mentioned on Country in Eurovision articles) should really have a mention. Wesley♦Mouse 15:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any source outside of Eurovision fansites mention OGAE contests and fanclubs and the winners of their voting. Eurovision fansites only report on it because they cater specifically to Eurovision fans. In the scope of the contest and the country in the contest, it's entirely irrelevant. The Marcel Bezençon Awards are organized and distributed by the EBU during the contest and are a part of the contest. OGAE voting and their various contest results are only relevant to Eurovision fans. Pickette (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well naturally OGAE will only be mentioned on Eurovision-related fansites - the clue is in the name "Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision". You're not exactly going to find them mentioned elsewhere now are you! The same goes for Eurovision; the majority of news is reported on Eurovision-related fansites. The Marcel Bezençon Awards were not created by the EBU, they were founded in 2002 by Christer Björkman, who was Sweden's representative at Eurovision 1992. And if OGAE contest results are only relevant to Eurovision fans, then why do so many former Eurovision participants agree to participate in the respective OGAE contests, and graciously accept the awards they win? Why do so many representatives also attend OGAE club meetings? If OGAE is not important to this project, then why do we include them within out project scope? The fact that it is fan-based is irrelevant here. The fact that there is a connection between Eurovision and OGAE, needs to be outlined and that connection portrayed across to the unfamiliar reader (one who is none the wiser about Eurovision) about the success that some participants from National Selection Shows, which are organised by the national broadcasters, which are also members of the EBU. So when we write about Pastora Soler in Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, and mention that "Quédate conmigo" won the ticket to Baku, while another of her entries from the same selection show "Tu vida es tu vida", which finished 2nd in the national selection, went on to OGAE Second Chance Contest 2012, and came 1st. That isn't important enough to mention to the general reader? Well if that's the case, then why bother even mentioning any of the other songs that too part in national selections on these articles? Might as well be simple and only write about the songs that were only selected. Wesley♦Mouse 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that OGAE contests aren't mentioned elsewhere is a good reason why they shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia either. The fanclub results are irrelevant to the entry and the contest. I don't know why OGAE is in this project's scope, to me it seems like a bunch of fan articles with information only a fan would ever look for. It instills some kind of false importance that a song with no competing stake won an online second chance fan contest. It's way too trivial and irrelevant in my opinion. As for covering national finals, they provide background into how an entry was selected to represent a particular nation; an entry that is actually competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. And the Marcel Bezençon Awards are integrated into the lead-up to the contest and covered on eurovision.tv with a news article and a video recording. Pickette (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, the important thing here is that we must only include things from sources that are independent from the topic in discussion. Things that don't primarily have to do with Eurovision.

Also, it's faulty logic in saying that taking a closer look at OGAE's notability would lead to ignoring national selections. They have little to do with each other's notability. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that both OGAE and Marcel Bezencon achivements are sided with additional but not main value achievemnts, can't be equal to the actual voting and info of ESC evening-shows, but also that OGAE have value and interest for the ESC from public-fans point of view.
Story: I myself was involved in some activities-parties of OGAE-Israel and I saw that after all, it's a very small group of fans (like 70) and that the voting is very casual. Also, there is the simple fact that OGAE and Marcel voting isn't influencing ESC outcome (unlike ESC vote and also national finals that choose entries for forming the international contest, like has been said). Also, the OGAE consists of only hundreds of amateur fans, while ESC vote is based on hundred-thousands of people with maybe millions of text-votes and professional juries with some of them being well-known. On the other hand, OGAE members doing vast activities including making organized trips in different ESC countries as well as bringing many ESC singers (like in 2012 Izabo from Israel and Valentina Monetta from San-Marino attended the party in Israel), and in 2013 it is known that SVT saved many standing-places close to the stage for OGAE mambers, as well that in previous years OGAE members get "journalists-cards" to attend press-centers and get places in the audiance. Overall, during the last years the OGAE is one of the factors that keep ESC alive with it's massive-eager fan support and activities, while some of the public lost interest in ESC compared to older years. And I also agree that it's natural that OGAE news will are mentioned on ESC news sites - since this is their place and connection. Also news about ESC contest itself are mostly mentioned on ESC-sites throughout the year and only mentioned in the wider-media some days before and after the international contest and on a certain country's wider-media some days before and after it's own national contest/selection.
So I agree in parts and disagree in parts with the other views. (And my view relate to both Countries in ESC articles and Annual ESC articles - as I wrote here above at the Location section). Both this OGAE and Marcel awards shouldn't be emphasized equally with different sections and tables like the info and table of the country's ESC entries and voting achievements. They should be mentioned briefly in a regular text of seperate paragraphs under a united section, with focusing on the country's awards in them and then give only necessery background informtaion about OGAE and Marcel Bezencon - so the article stays focused on the relevent issue and not written in a way that it enters the OGAE and and Marcel Bezencon "worlds". Only information about the essence and function of the organization in relations to ESC - without mentioning founders and things as that it's not political/non-govermental. It's enough to write that it's a fan club organization and give reference within the paragraph to the main OGAE article - where all this other details are elaborating on the organization.
אומנות (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed idea

Hypothetical example with Italy with imaginary examples of winning some Marcel awards, some OGAE awards : Taking achivements and incidents of this country's overall ESC participation and specific entries - in regards to media and public attention and acceptance - and put them on "Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest" article like this:

(SECTION:) Country's participation in public (or: Country's participation in public and media)

(SMALLER TITLE OF SUB-SECTION:) Achivements

(paragraph and table about Public vs. Jury results:) From the year 2008 onwards, the EBU based the Eurovision Song Contest voting on the scale of counting the public votes as 50% and the jury votes as 50% of the outcome, with also publishing after the contest's finals the split results. Here is how the public and the jury voted for Italy seperately since 2008:
(Underneath this paragraph adding a table with columns of Year, Public's placing, Jury placing on final and semi-final - in the case of Italy only final. This table elaborates on the first table that shows the final and semi song's title/language/performer/overall-combined placing - and give the achivement of each song from 2008 onwards from the public and jury's views. However there is no need for scores, only placings - useless to write how many points the song achieved when there isn't introduction of other country's songs from that year to compare with. On the other hand it's good to write placing and in brackets how many songs competed in each year - giving an idea about the quntity, competing field).

(Paragraph about Marcel Bezencon:) In 2007, Italy's entry "La-Li-Pop" performed by "x" and compsed by "Xx", "Z" and "M", won the Composer Award of the Marcel Bezençon Awards for most original composition, as voted by a jury consisting of the 2007 contest's entries composers. In 2011, Italy's entry "Madness of Love" won the Press Award, as voted on by the accredited media and press during the 2011 event, and the Artistic Award as voted on by the commentators, with the Marcel Bezencon organization holding three categories; Press Award, Artistic Award and Composer Award, first handed out during the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and which are named after the creator of the Eurovision Song Contest - Marcel Bezençon.

(Paragraph about OGAE:) In 2007 and 2012, Italy's respective entries: "La-Li-Pop" and "L'amore è femmina (Out of Love)", won the voting of OGAE - Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision, an international organisation that was founded in 1984 and consists of a network of 40 Eurovision Song Contest fan clubs across Europe and beyond.

(SMALLER TITLE OF SUB-SECTION:) Incidents
In 1974, Italy's entry "Si" by Gigliola Cinquetti was censored from radio and television stations in Italy due to claims of political message before the Italian elections, in 1985 Italy originaly had an entry named "I love Italy" which was accused by critics of plagiarism and was replaced with the entry "Magic ho Magic"...

In my view, this is the most valuable and interesting way to present such public and media information in all ESC articles - capturing it under such section of public and media acceptance and achivements. As for other contests of OGAE (like with the example of Pastora Soler which her song that finished 2nd in the NF won OGAE second chance), my view is that it's not relevent anymore to "Country in Eurovision" articles since it's about songs that didn't reach ESC to begin with. But on the same scale, I think such information can be blend in more specific articles such as: "Spain in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest" or "Spain's National Final for 2012 ESC" - in a way that shows how this specific national final songs that were performed by Pastora Soler, as comprising this specific national-final event - got accepted and what other awards and titles they achieved within the public and the media.
אומנות (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think an Other Awards section with a brief paragraph referring only to whether a particular entry was the winner of the OGAE vote is better than letting it have its own section and including a table. But I would only support OGAE facts being referred to when they are in regards to voting for the entries in a particular Eurovision Song Contest. References to contests that the OGAE organize, such as Second Chance, should be left out of all Eurovision articles, in my opinion. The contests they organize are purely fan material of interest to only OGAE members and possibly some other Eurovision fans. Pickette (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a slight error on my part. I forgot the RfC I rebooted was just for Country in Eurovision; and not Country in Eurovision by Year articles. When I mentioned about national selection songs that went onto OGAE being noted in articles, it was on the Country by Year articles; to which they would be better included; as it we would be providing informative details regarding a song that took part in a national final. Wesley♦Mouse 12:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision fans are NOT automatic OGAE members though, which is what I getting at. Pickette (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should stick to discussing the matter at hand rather than me as a user. Pickette (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply been discussing this OGAE matter here. I never made a personal remark about you or discussed anything other than the topic of this particular discussion. Feel free to re-read this discussion. Pickette (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wont comment on that because I'm not going to derail this discussion with stuff like this. I've done nothing wrong here and I've stayed on topic. If you have a personal issue with me, you can comment on my talk page. Pickette (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your question is really? But maybe you can clarify a bit and ask it on my talk page and I'll answer. Pickette (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, I don't know what the history is here between you and Pickette, but I can see nothing rude about the way he has responded to you above. Please could you lower the tone - this is after all a public place for discussing the article. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Wesley, I think it's you that needs to take a Wikibreak. I saw no condescension coming from Pickette at all. The first sign of hostility was when you said "OGAE members are Eurovision fans, d'oh!" This was unwarranted; her statement never contradicted that. All she was saying that in the greater scheme of things, OGAE-organized contests are non-notable. And then you say "Calm down Pickette before you give yourself a hernia," after what seemed like a natural, non-offensive response from Pickette. The only attitude I see in this entire discussion stemmed from you, Wesley, which mostly comes from a lack of comprehension in what Pickette is trying to say. Please assume good faith, and keep calm and rational. Disagreement does not equal a personal attack.

Also, I chanced upon Pickette's talk page where you both agreed on an Interaction Ban. Does this mean that Pickette is no longer welcome in this discussion, as you are involved as well, Wesley? I find this rather disconcerting.

All in all though, I agree with אומנות's format. I do prefer sticking to prose rather than putting things into tables, which is more encyclopedic. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gerbear, we are discussing the matter on Wesley Mouse's talk page. If you're interested in knowing what is happening in regards to this, you can look there. For the record, I don't endorse Wesley Mouse's account of the events on AndrewRT's talk page and I've never sent malicious emails to Wesley Mouse or anyone on Wikipedia for that matter. I didn't even know email was possible on Wikipedia until I was accused of doing such a thing. Pickette (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to make amends with each other. Hopefully everything turns out well for the good of the Project. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a bit of an idea regarding this section, and would love to read the views of others. Details on OGAE would probably be better off being included in articles such as Austria in the OGAE Second Chance Contests, although there are no such articles as of yet, and they would probably fail the odd wikipolicy here or there. But if such articles were allowed, then would this be a better solution to the whole OGAE issue? At the end of the day the contests must be notable enough for them to be reported on Eurovision-related websites. What is notable to one may not be notable to another, but nevertheless notability is there. It is like what is common knowledge to one person may not be as common of knowledge to another. And without spreading that knowledge, then we would not be assisting it to become common knowledge to everyone. And then perhaps in articles that this RfC is covering, we would only need to briefly mention them in prose format perhaps using the suggestion that אומנות (talk · contribs) mentioned above? And I still think that mentioning any song that failed in a national final but gained success in an OGAE contest could be worthwhile adding brief detail about, but of course in their respective annual pages such as Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators and spokespersons

Some variations in the heading across articles. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest

Present where applicable, such as in Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate into history section? Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support putting it in the history section. It was a one time event and can be summarized in a sentence or two. Grk1011 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Add comments here.

References

Add comments here.

External links

I think the links that would be idealogical for these articles would be: the country's profile page on Eurovision.tv; and a link to their National Broadcaster's official Eurovision website (if they have one). Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

Discuss any other issues which don't fit under a section heading here. And I would suggest that all project members be notified of this discussion. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been invited to comment here by the RFC Bot and come here as an outsider not aware of the history, so apologies if I'm repeating something that has already been discussed.

I am entirely unconvinced of the value of this approach. What is relevant, reliably supported or stylistically desirable will vary considerably over the articles in this section. It would make more sense to write each article individually based on the information that is available in reliable sources and relevant to the particular country and/or year. The danger with the standardised template approach is that we will end up forcing in unsourced or poorly sourced information just because it says so in the template. Hope this is helpful. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary

Since this discussion has expired, I think it is time to officially close it and summarize what has occurred. I was a participant, so any disagreements should be posted below this summary.

Lead: No discussion.
Infobox: No discussion.
History: No clear consensus was established. However, standardisation of what should go in this section for consistency was suggested.
Records: Agreement that this section was trivial, and that it should be merged into the History section.
Contestants: Agreement to include wikilinks to individual 'Country by Year' articles. Any pictures to be moved. Any that are relevant to content within the History section be moved there, and the rest from noteworthy years, be moved to a new section at the bottom entitled Picture gallery.
Voting history: Voting history should be kept to a top-5 only, with a written prose to explain what these sections are.
Hosting: No discussion. Although a written prose explaining what the tables are for would be preferable.
Marcel Bezençon Awards: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.
Winner by OGAE members: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.
Commentators and spokespersons: No discussion. Although a written prose explaining what the tables are for would be preferable.
Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.
Notes: No discussion.
See also: No discussion.
References: No discussion.
External links: No discussion.
Other issues: No clear discussion was established. However, it was noted that what is relevant, reliably supported or stylistically desirable will vary considerably over articles on a case-by-case basis. It was also noted that each article should be written on an individual basis, which is true that it should. But to maintain some kind of consistency on how each article is presented I.E. section-by-section would be logical.

Wesley Mᴥuse 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014

Resolved

Is it still too early to create such an article? I thought about making it but the information announced so far is limited to the announcement of the artist. Pickette (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 50/50 on this one. In my opinion I would say such articles should be created as soon as there is information regarding national selections. However, others tend to say wait until there is a plethora of details, so that we avoid premature articles becoming victim to the deletionists, who are always so eager to place WP:PRODs on such "minimal" articles (which is a phrase I have seen deletionists use in the past) - although I would probably defend the article if a PROD did appear on it. We know Valentina has been pre-selected for now, but that's about as much information that we know. Would it be better to highlight this early information on San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest for now, and then expand into its own annual article once we know more on the selection process? Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colour codes for last placings

Resolved

We could do with reviewing key-colour for last placings (red background) on the 'Country in Eurovision' articles only. As every will be aware, wikilinks are in blue text, and having that on red backgrounds causes chromostereopsis, which has been known to cause migraines and in some rare circumstances epileptic seizures. From a safety prospective, this needs to be reviewed urgently, so that we can make the relevant alterations with immediate effect. Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current method on 'Country' in the Eurovision Song Contest

1st	2nd	3rd	Last
1976	1986	1996	2006

Alternatives for last placings

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

Hm. I have two questions: 1) Is it really necessary for the last placer to be specially colored? And 2) I'm not very sure chromostereopsis on such a small scale would be too triggering, really? Isn't it flashing red-blue images that trigger them too and not still images? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why last placing have been specially coloured, in my opinion what is so special about finishing last that it warrants a colour? But hey-ho, I'll go along with the majority if people want to cease using colour on last places. And still images have been known to trigger seizures too, not just flashing images. A friend of mine has had many a seizure in the past from still imaged chromostereopsis. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. I suggest we do away with the color entirely. If not, No. 4 would be a good alternative. Thanks for the added info about these images. Now I know to be more careful with these in the future. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grins like a Cheshire cat - I'm with you on the abolishment of using colour to highlight last place. Wonder if others would be in agreement too? Wesley ☮ Mouse 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Eurovision there are only two important colours, the qualifying colour and gold for first. Second, third and last really mean nothing.

But also remember that the table borders can change colour.

-- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the use. If it will be used in the year articles I still don't agree on putting colors (for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and last places). Just the qualifiers and the winner in the final should be colored. If it is for the countries' articles then it's okay. I think that the 6th color should be used for the last places. Dimitris ♪ (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both AxG and Dimitris. Sorry I should have stipulated from the start that I was referring to 'Country' in Eurovision articles which seem to be using colours for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last place. The annual ESC articles should remain as they are with only colours to show qualifiers and the winner. Although I have noticed other language wikis use a pastel-green for qualifiers rather than the colour we use. Would green be a better option for us to adopt in these circumstances? Wesley ☮ Mouse 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pastel green would be better, yes. As for the table border colors, I think it would look too different from Wikipedia style if that was implemented for last places in the Country articles. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in changing the qualified colour, it's just a big editing change we don't need as it does not change the nature of the content, and also some use green and some use the same colour we do there's no standard. P.s. I'm a blue person myself.

-- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 12:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for "X Country in ESC", I support introducing colours for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and last places, as it highlights every country's success and failures in relation to the field of other songs - according to the focus of the article on a specific country's ESC histroy. As for the annual ESC articles I prefer only highlighting first place for the winner of X-year. For highlighting last place (on X-country article), I prefer option 6 and then option 4. My opinion is like Dimitris' opinion. Also, I like pastel green but I prefer light-golden-orange like colour. But also as axg mentioned, if there is already a majority of articles that use a certain colour for qualifiers and winner, and 2nd-3rd places (that don't have colours that annoy the eye as red-blue for the last place), than it's better to keep this standard colours and only replace the red-blue of the last place. אומנות (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too keen on color-coding last places. Most of the tables (except for the scoreboards) are sortable, so the last place could be found relatively easy. I like the way it is currently set up (qualifiers and 1st). After all, the emphasis of the concert really is on who wins it all. The other finishing places aren't focused on. I think using as little colors as possible would keep the articles visually clean. Dfizzles (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dfizzles, you have realised we're not discussing the main annual articles, but articles such as France in the Eurovision Song Contest, which do highlight last place. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I like the red we use right now, I admit is quite hard on the eyes, and if there's any possibility that someone might suffer some damage from it, I'm all in favor of changing it ASAP. From the color proposals, I like number 4. I also thought about black, but I'm not sure how readable a wikilink would be over a black background. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a black test to the proposals for comparison sake. Wesley ☮ Mouse 03:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a big no from me. (But thanks for considering it anyway) So, I guess pink or pastel orange are our better options. Not A Superhero (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing everyone's views on this, it would appear that options 4 and 6 are both preferable. As option 4 is pink (a paler shade of red), would everyone be OK if we went ahead with that choice? I've implemented option 4 onto Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest, to show how it would look. Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like that a lot! It looks a lot more pleasant. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and rolled it out using AWB across all the articles. So I assume we're safe to say this topic is resolved!? Thank you everyone who contributed. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new contest being launched in December

Hello fellow Eurovisionairies. Eurovoix.com and Hurriyet Daily News have both published that Turkey are to launch in December 2013 their own version of Eurovosion called "Turkvision". As almost all of the participating countries will be within the EBU region, would we be accepting this new contest into our project scope? And if so, do we create an article now, or wait for new information to be published. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be within our scope. Most media coverage for the event is hype because of association with Eurovision, though, so let's wait a bit so we can establish notability for yearly articles. A main Turkvision article would be ok, but let's not start making individual countries and years yet. I'm saying this mostly because there are a lot of other regional song contests we don't even have articles for, like the Baltic Song Contest, for instance, that are already well-established but not covered by Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, country articles would be too soon. That's why I waited for the second ABU TV Song Festival before creating country articles for those. And I'm waiting for more on the 2nd ABU Radio version before setting up country articles on them too. Wesley ☮ Mouse 22:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait, hold up. Turkvision has been around since at least 2011.[1] We need to take these new articles with a grain of salt because it seems like they're drumming it up to be a new contest to contrast with Eurovision when it's not new at all. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 22:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say, do a Turkvision main article. But wait with the 2013 article etc. Interesting. But will likely become a "non event" when it comes to coverage and status of the contest like most of the "Eurovision spin-offs.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But at the same time I do not see the harm in making stub for Turkvision 2013 after reading in the sources you provided that the dates for the contest has been announced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The current news is definitely overhype. Turkvision 2013 is the FOURTH Turkvision song contest. They merely took a break last year.[2] Mr. Gerbear|Talk 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand was that Turkvision before was simply an internal contest. Now they will expand it this year to all of these other countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be confusing two concepts here. Looking at the second link Gerbear provided, that is for Türkçe Sözlü Müzik Festīvalī (or "Türkçevīzyon") for short, which was a music festival that took place between 11-14 September 2013 in the Denizli Municipality. Eurovoix and Daily News state a new show called "Turkvision" will take place in Eskişehir during the 19-23 December this year. Wesley ☮ Mouse 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wesley is the one of us three that are totally correct here. I think so too, considering the name difference.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to brag here. But the one thing that I stood out was the two logos. Gerbear's second link uses a totally different logo (Türkçevīzyon 2013) compared to the one shown on the promo photo of Eurovoix (Türkvīzyon). The "ce" is missing from the second logo. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see. I didn't notice that at all. So Türkvīzyon is totally different from Türkçevīzyon. What the hell, TRT. Similarly, I would stay away from considering Eurovoix a reliable source as they are merely reporting on Hurriyet's report, from which they took that photo too. In any case, I'm looking for news on the TRT's website regarding this. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 23:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) On the contrary regarding Eurovoix, I have to disagree. Rule number one in journalism is, if there's only one source, then there might as well be no source at all. But if there are several sources, then it becomes verifiable and hold credibility. The fact that Hurriyet were the primary news source, and Eurovoix are sourcing them, makes Eurovoix a secondary source, purely because we can verify that what Eurovoix are reporting by checking on their sources. (If that makes sense). Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Oikotimes (which can be semi-reliable) and they have a clip of the announcement made on TRT. So that adds more weight to Eurovoix's reliability status. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. If anything, that shows Oikotimes being considerably more reliable than Eurovoix. There WAS one source, and that was Hurriyet, from which Eurovoix took all its information. What you say is correct: if there's only one source, there might as well be no source at all. The fact that Eurovoix used the only source, which was as good as no source, doesn't prove their reliability. We cannot at all verify that Eurovoix independently verifies whether what Hurriet reported on was true or not. That first rule of journalism requires several, independent sources, of which Eurovoix does not qualify because their report was completely dependent on Hurriyet.

Also, Hurriyet was a secondary source because they were there at the announcement, which was in itself the primary source. Eurovoix is a tertiary source, and did a report from a report. If anything, Hurriet would have sufficed, but seeing Oikotimes has a video of the announcement, I'd rather cite them than Eurovoix. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 23:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Play caution to using Oikotimes on the references. There was a discussion over a year ago, and they were deemed semi-reliable. From what I recall, if a source states another source within their report (even if it is only one) then it was deemed reliable. TRT held a press conference for the concept launch, which a lot of local "Turkic" media would have been in attendance (Hurriyet Daily News being one of them). We cannot speculate or assume why Eurovoix chose to use them as a source. Perhaps that was the first source that shown up during their research, and they decided to go ahead and quote them as a source. But since Eurovoix made the report, there have now been multiple others too, including Oikotimes which chose to use a TV clip as their source, and Eurovisiontimes.com who also chose to source Hurriyet's report. Eurovoix have been pretty reliable in the past, and have been favoured amongst many project members too. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources (1 and 2) stating that Bosnia-Herzegovina, along with hosts Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have confirmed participation in Turkvision 2013. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A-class assessments

Unlike good articles and featured articles which have their own nominations board (WP:GAN and WP:FAR respectively), the A-class review does not. According to the information at WP:ACLASS there are two methods, "basic" and "formal":

Basic method

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page.

Formal WikiProject review

A more formal review may be useful for some WikiProjects, such as the method used successfully at the Military History project. The method is summarized below:

Add A-Class=current to the WikiProject banner at the top of the article's talk page, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears then write up your nomination.
Add your nomination (via transclusion) to the review section of the WikiProject.
Others from the WikiProject review the article.
A coordinator from the project closes the review, and (if successful) the article is tagged and listed as A-Class.

Based on the information above, as we do not have a formal A-class reviewing team then we're to go about the "basic method". However, as we're a reasonably large-ish project, I would like to invite members of the project to discuss whether we should form an A-class reviewing section, and thus we'd have be able to operate a "formal WikiProject reviewing team", similar to how WikiProject Military history have theirs set up? The project doesn't have any A-class articles at this present time, although we do have the classification on our assessment scale, and there are a few articles that could be potential A-class. Does anyone have any objections or comments to this proposal? Wesley Mᴥuse 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at an A-class assessment at Talk:Lockheed D-21, the classification would only be placed on our project banner, and other projects would remain at GA-class or B-class, until they decide to review for A-class themselves. Wesley Mᴥuse 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
 |maxarchivesize = 100K
-|counter = 9
+|counter =
 |minthreadsleft = 5
 |algo = old(56d)
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 |}
+== RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles ==
-== "Location" section ==
-{{Unresolved}}
-I continue to have serious problems with this section. I have expressed these reservations to [[User:Wesley Mouse]] some time ago, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_1970&diff=prev&oldid=555390459 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.) [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mr. Gerbear|Mr. Gerbear]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk:אומנות|talk]]) 17:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
-:::Unfortunately The OGAE and Marcel Bezençon Awards sections were previously discussed [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8#Summary|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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]]♦[[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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?  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]]♦[[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. :) [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]]♦[[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]]♦[[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]]♦[[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 16:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
-::*Yes: that's the kind of information that will be valuable. Take care, Wesley. There's no rush. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk: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.<br />
-::::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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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 [[Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 5#GA Review|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 [[wikt:mockery|mockery]] towards a user's illiteracy.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk:אומנות|talk]]) 22:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
-{{Outdent|::::::}}
-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 [[WP:COI|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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:MOS|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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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''.<br />
-:::::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.  [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk:אומנות|talk]]) 17:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
-{{Outdent|:::::::}}
-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 [[WP:TIND|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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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.<br />
-:::::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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:PG|rule]] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, '''ignore it'''."''  This would apply here.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk:אומנות|talk]]) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
-{{Outdent|:::::::}}
-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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:BOLD|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.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:אומנות|אומנות]] ([[User talk:אומנות|talk]]) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
-== Germany or West Germany? ==
-{{Resolved}}
-Hey, WikiProject Eurovision. I noticed that {{user|Mike22r}} edited a bunch of the yearly Eurovision pages, changing Germany to West Germany. Do we have policy on this? I think that it should be presented as West Germany if they were introduced as West Germany in the contest itself, which will have to be double-checked. (Also, said user changed "spokespersons" to "spokesmen", which I undid per the Manual of Style on gender-neutrality). [[User:Mr. Gerbear|Mr. Gerbear]] ([[User talk:Mr. Gerbear|talk]]) 08:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
-:I've only just noticed this thread Gerbear, so sorry.  Mike22r seems to be out of line with those changes.  Even the official website do not use [http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=275 West Germany].  I've been [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and reverted all his actions accordingly.  Now do we warn him about his errors or leave it be?  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 21:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
-::Oops just saw this reply now. I had only warned him over the gender-neutrality thing, but he hasn't come back since May so I think we should just leave it be for now. [[User:Mr. Gerbear|Mr. Gerbear]] ([[User talk:Mr. Gerbear|talk]]) 00:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
-== RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles ==
 {{Archive top|result= This RfC has now closed. Please see the summary section for details of the outcome.  [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#150879">'''Wesley'''</span>]] [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#978051">'''Mᴥuse'''</span>]] 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)  }}
 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]], as well as [[Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest]] and so on. [[User:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#123524">'''Wesley'''</span>]] ☮ [[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<span style="color:#000080">'''''Mouse'''''</span>]] 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)