Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Archives

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Country in the Eurovision Song Contest Year

The two Good Articles within "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest Year" are currently undergoing reassessment for encyclopedic content (broad coverage). It wouldn't require much work to bring them up to standard as the material is available. See Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2 and Talk:Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2.

Also see Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1, as that article is undergoing a GA review and needs the same attention.

There will be more detailed suggestions shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision Newsletter

Is there any chance that when delivering this, it could come with a date and time stamp please, as a Bot can't archive them, and this may effect others. Thanks. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well its nice when the bot doesn't archive them because then I can guarantee that people read them :p I'll try to do something when I deliver the next issue. There is also a Newsletter Department where you can talk about this kind of thing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries

There is currently a discussion ongoing (as shown through the above link) about policy's position on galleries. This could be quite significant for this project as quite a few articles have them, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm actually the discussion seems to have died down a bit recently, but it is still ongoing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacing and navboxes

There seems a bit of a unwritten disagreement on if navboxes should be at the end of articles after a double (hard) space as in Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, or after a single space as in Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. It is a bit of trivial issue but is quite noticeable when moving from article to article through navboxes. I have not found anything in the WP:MOS which specifies which to use. I hope we can come to an agreement on the issue. I personally do not see the need for double spacing, and no other project I am a member, such as schools and films, seems to follow this practice. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the double space cause then then refs aren't jammed on top of the navbox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't look on top to me, and what if external links are last? Are they any different? Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, same with the external links. It just seems that with everything there is a space skipped, and with the case of the navboxes, two spaces are skipped in the code, to show one. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The gap that comes out if you double space is quite large compared to others in an article, enough to put two lines of text in to me. If you single space however it does not seem to leave a single line gap strangely, only a very small one. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer double spacing. It tends to look better. I feel like there is no separation with single spacing. Even if there is a larger gap, I actually think that is better. It makes it look separate. Greekboy (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, since we now have a third opinion, per below unless anyone objects I am going to assume we have consensus for two spaces before navboxes if they are directly following an external links or references section, and hence all articles on this project should slowly be standardised to this format. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only the navboxes and other templates that are the problem, other than that the spacing will appear normal if there is another header below it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for normal headings, only single spaces should be used as per normal. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this does not seem to be a big issue I am requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion as a sort of tie breaker, even if the issue in the bigger picture is very unimportant, it would be good to have consistency. The arguments are split roughly 50/50, so it will be interesting to see what an outsider has to say. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we now have a third opinion I have withdrawn the request. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nul points

I'm a little confused between Nul Points and Nil Points. Why are there two and which is right? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. I always thought it was Nul Points, and the infoboxes seem to use this term. The Nil Points article (created December 2008) should probably be merged into the Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Host city insignia

I found this page also: Host City Insignia; should it be expanded, merged, etc? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have marked the image that was used in the article for deletion on Commons, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HostCityInsignia.jpg for reasoning. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image galleries

I see that we include image galleries on the ESC pages, and was wondering what people think of this. I know there was a debate on galleries at Wikipedia:Image use policy, but there doesn't seem to be a firm outcome. I am posed to add a gallery on Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest since there is sort of an image stack up, although it is not affected by gaps. Personally, I think in a case like that, a gallery is better suited as it is an overview page, with the images not describing a specific point in the article. Thoughts on this matter are appreciated, especially since this is a project wide practice. There are image galleries on a number of the "Eurovision XXXX" pages. Greekboy (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the present layout works well. The images take up the white empty space that would otherwise be there and are more likely to be seen as opposed to a gallery just plopped at the end of the page. "Image stacking" is not a problem here as that only matters when stacked images cause awkward gaps in the text which, as of now, there are none.

The image galleries are fine on the regular Eurovision XXXX pages as this is a different case where we simply can't have 43 or so images scattered throughout the article. However, for the Country in ESC pages, I feel that a gallery is not necessary; if there are too many pictures, leave only the ones that are notable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011. It's more practical to have stacked images in the country pages and galleries in the year pages. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the present layout. Like Michael, it's says it's practical to do it this way. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference though? Why is it more practical? I would call 6 images stacked, a lot, plus one more each year if you consider that one is likely to be added each year. But regardless of that, keep in mind that I am also asking a project wide question, not just Greece in ESC. I think that there needs to be a consensus on this if we are using it project wide. What determines how many images are necessary to have a gallery? If you use the white space argument, there is white space in every article. Greekboy (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say use as many images as the contestants table allows for. Nothing says we need one for every single appearance. This is an overview page so if there are too many images like i said above, than we can just choose the most memorable or important images. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But still. Who decides what is notable or memorable? I don't see how that argument can stand if you are trying to argue it with a random user trying to add in some free images. Greekboy (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deciding what images to include is an issue on many articles, I assume it is just resolved on talk page consensus on image quality and relevance. This has to happen in some cases such as games articles where lots of people like to add images but the amount has to be capped as they are usually fair use (i.e. image galleries are not allowed). In the Greece example I think the best long-term solution is to expand the article to have a small section summary on each year (article), this will make the article much longer but still reasonable as well as following guidelines, and will allow more images to be placed in-line with the article content. I generally don't like galleries for similar reasons as trivia sections and I support their discouragement in policy, as galleries are best placed on Commons. There is already some Commons galleries for a few Eurovision articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and they are usually prominently linked at the bottom of articles, which can make near identical in article galleries redundant. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotice update

As discussed previously (see archive 3), this MediaWiki feature has/is being tried out on Eurovision articles to reduce the level of reverts being made. It is currently in use on two articles:

• Eurovision Song Contest 2009 at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Eurovision Song Contest 2009
• Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Compliance with the edit notices initially was very good though it was never going to be 100%. However, it has deteriorated particularly on the ESC 2009 article, with IPs and even established registered users just ignoring it - the most common being not sourcing material at all, hence resulting in further reverts. Reasons for this could include:

• The article is just getting more active for the 2009 contest, hence more edits, hence more edits ignoring the edit notice.
• The edit notice is ageing, so "naturally" people are ignoring it more.
• The edit notice is too long, people are not reading it.
• The edit notice is confusing to new users, so they are ignoring it.

I think now would be a good time to review the edit notices, what changes do project members think should be made? Should the edit notices be left in place at all? What stuff should be removed? What should be added? I do have drafts of these edit notices at User:Camaron/Sandbox that any user can make bold changes to for implementation. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think having them is still a great idea, but there will always be some who just don't care to look. At least by having it, there is a chance that it will be seen. I do think they should be refreshed. Are we allowed to do anything more eye catching like with larger print, multiple colors, etc? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should keep them. Use of the {{editnotice}} template seems to be standard so there is a limit to what colours can be used, but we can put some content in different colours e.g. key text in red. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have improved and implemented changes to the two templates, copies of which can be found at User:Camaron/Sandbox. I have made the title bigger and introduced the colour red to make it stand out more, though I have tried not to over use it as doing so makes it less effective. I have cut down the content to the key points to make it more likely to be read. For the ESC 2009 I have also added a more hard hitting reference to how high profile the article is, particularly as it gets a link on the main page during the contest, and the fact it could be commented on by the press (which has happened for other article types in the past). If anyone has any suggestions, please make them. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just fyi the edit notice system is currently being jigged about a bit, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Fyi on per-article edit notices. The ESC edit notices have been moved to Template:Editnotices/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and Template:Editnotices/Eurovision Song Contest 2009. It was originally announced that they were no longer working, but they seem to work again now? With the move anyone can now edit these notices, but for security reasons it is unlikely to stay that way - they will probably be fully or semi-protected depending on consensus. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know this project existed!

When I did click to the place where people can add names if they are interested in contributing, I did not see any. Is this a new project, an orphan project, or did I miss something? Being in the USA, I only bumped into the existance of such a contest upon research for Colm Wilkinson, who gained Ireland 5th place in 1978 on his way to originating what is arguably the definitive role of Jean Valjean in later years in Les Misérables. Please see the article for Colm Wilkinson for that information.

• Also, the article on what it means to reprise a role desperately needs help. I'd never heard of the term before, but I can recognize repeated musical patterns of melody within musicals like Les Misérables and Jesus Christ Superstar; often ingenious. However, I think that page, which is not references, seems to cofuse medleys and songs from Green Day with the term. (??!!) --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've been around and active for years now with almost 2000 articles under our banner. Here is our list of members if you would like to join, I don't know where you were looking and saw that it was blank. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision: Your Country Needs You

I've upgraded the "Your Country Needs You" article to C Class, though I do feel with more references the article could be up for peer review for a possible B Class promotion. Afkatk (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Change in Country Navbox

I'm thinking we could change the Country navbox into something more easily accessible, above is the current Navbox for Ireland and below is the NavBox I've just done some work on, the Did not compete column can be up for some type of change if not be taken complete away.

Afkatk (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk too. I think I prefer the original one more, but let's see what others think. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this could replace the current Template:Eurovision years as it looks much neater and is easier to navigate on. Afkatk (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I don't like the new design, it does seem a little easier, though I have two reservations: (1) there is a lot of white space on the right, which looks a little odd, (2) the decades should not have ' in them e.g. 1950's -> 1950s, as done in relevant articles. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was kind of mucking about with it and came up with this, I think it covers the improvements while adding something more to it, the image can always be taken away.

Afkatk (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the present way is fine, I have no problems with it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The present way is fine but I feel the 2nd (or 3rd posted) is more user friendly. Afkatk (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this latest design, the picture looks good. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that it's so narrow. It will look awks when stacked with a full width navbox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that, you have a point. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it will look that awkward, just because it's width has been cut shouldn't damage it. Afkatk (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty it doesn't seem like a big problem for other Wikiprojects such as Tennis', See Here Afkatk (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that link for the Tennis Project does look awkward. Let's wait a little and see if any other project members have anything to say. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We could always get a Third Opinion outside of the Eurovision project. Afkatk (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok it's been 3 days since we've left it for other members to comment on, lets decide whether to have this change. Afkatk (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think the current format works well and there could be more productive things that we can work on. I don't like how it's smushed and how it presents consistency issues when dealing with countries that have irregular participation. It's one of those things that though could be better, is fine the way it is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there is such a problem with the Change. I'm going to request a Third Opinion this issue. Afkatk (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion - For future reference, WP:3o should only be used when the dispute is between two editors, use WP:RFC for disputes with more than two. But while I'm here, I personally prefer the second navbox, the full width one. It is much easier to find different years with that design, and the white space is only a minor issue. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point in changing the navboxes, they are perfectly fine how they are now. How are we going to make get correctly sized maps for each country? -Diggiloo (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FYR Macedonia articles

User Aradic-es (talk · contribs) has been moving the articles from F.Y.R. Macedonia... to Republic of Macedonia..., this is not following WP:MOSMAC which states (under Summary guidance): "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events that use specific Macedonia-related terminology. Use the terminology adopted by the organisation or event in question (e.g. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" etc)". So it would help if they where moved back. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already moved many of them back as I see you have too. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)