Home | Talk | Alerts | Assessment | Quality Articles | Formatting & Guidance | Newsdesk | Members | Eurovision Cup |
|
|
"Map of the singers' local origins" on Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest
Can we get a WikiProject consensus for this recent addition to the Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest article? Including the original creator, User:Kahlores, for visibility. While I do think it's certainly an interesting addition, I'm not sure if it fits with the article, or how useful it is within this context. It also raises questions on conformity with other articles, if we were to replicate this, as although all artists which have represented Ukraine in the contest were born or originate in Ukraine, this is not the same for other countries; there is no rule stating that artists must be of the country they represent and many countries have been represented by artists from across the world. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting, but more on the WP:TRIVIA side of information. Is it relevant what cities the entrants were born in?. Grk1011 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone wanting to know where in the country the artist is from can find this information on the artist's page. -- AxG / ✉ 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- The intent of this map was to show which culture each singer represents, since Ukraine is such a diverse country.
- In three cases the birthplaces were other soviet republics, so I chose the place in Ukraine where they were raised instead. This seems to work well as a measure of cultural origin.
- It matters a lot. National selections are in fact heavily politicized, something which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Sources: (2022) (2019)
- For instance, from the Western part comes Ruslana, who later became an MP; GreenJoly, whose political lyrics had to be edited; and this year's Kalush. Singers coming from Russian-speaking areas are, unsurprisingly, less likely to have sung a political message.
- Naturally, this type of map is of little interest in countries that are smaller or homogenous. Kahlores (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Grk1011? Kahlores (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would concur with Grk1011 on this. I think it is certainly interesting information, especially from the context you are adding to this talk page, but I'm not sure how encyclopaedic it is. Yes there are certainly political aspects to previous Ukrainian entries in the contest, but there's nowhere on the article that links where a person was born or raised to the fact that there are more likely to be "political" entries from those regions, and to me seems to be more conjecture than fact. There are also I believe too many exceptions for this to be a rule or something that can be proven, and additionally the points you are making above are not backed up by reliable sources which would therefore warrant the inclusion of the map in this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- We could definitely find sources for the assertion that the Ukrainian selection is heavily politicized, starting with the two I gave the other day. Most sources are likely to be in Ukrainian/Russian, though. Perhaps I could write a subsection about it, instead of letting people guess what I mean by this map.
- In fact, the national selection has specific rules over political issues and symbols. Just in the last 6 national selections, two songs were withdrawn over disagreements about trips to Russia, and one, "1944" by Crimean Tatar Jamala, has a clear political message, unlike the other silly love songs. Kahlores (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that Ukraine's Eurovision selection process has not had political moments in the past, and certainly that would be relevant information for this article and the related articles on political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest and Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. However this is a separate point to the map which was added, and unless there are sources linking where an artist came from to any political controversies that they were a part of at Eurovision or in the selections, then including the map in this proposed section would border on subjective information and trivia that can't be backed up in this encyclopaedic setting. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would concur with Grk1011 on this. I think it is certainly interesting information, especially from the context you are adding to this talk page, but I'm not sure how encyclopaedic it is. Yes there are certainly political aspects to previous Ukrainian entries in the contest, but there's nowhere on the article that links where a person was born or raised to the fact that there are more likely to be "political" entries from those regions, and to me seems to be more conjecture than fact. There are also I believe too many exceptions for this to be a rule or something that can be proven, and additionally the points you are making above are not backed up by reliable sources which would therefore warrant the inclusion of the map in this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Grk1011? Kahlores (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone wanting to know where in the country the artist is from can find this information on the artist's page. -- AxG / ✉ 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Error with junior yearly contest infoboxes
There is an error in the infoboxes of the "Country" in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest "Year" articles as when you like the previous/next year arrows you are taken to the equalivent adult pages. For example if you click the left arrow at the bottom of Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 you are taken to Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 not Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019. If this doesn't make sense I can explain it in further replies. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, that was probably my fault. I created an edit request to fix it. Thanks for pointing it out. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
A discussion with three editors is not carte blanche to redirect every stub Eurovision song article
Hello. There has been a campaign to redirect what seems like every single Eurovision song article tagged as a stub since a December 2021 discussion here started by Sims2aholic8. In that discussion, I see two editors agreeing non-notable stubs should be deleted (@Jochem van Hees:, @Aris Odi:), one who commented somewhat neutrally (@Grk1011:) and one in disagreement @BabbaQ:). I don't know how this has been interpreted as carte blanche to redirect every Eurovision topic tagged as a stub. I'm incredibly concerned Sims2aholic8 has made it their hobby since this meagre discussion took place to redirect articles simply because they're short—including songs that charted highly and even reached number one on various European charts—including to edit war with the user Tobyjamesaus on Don't Come Easy to retain a redirect. We never edit war to retain redirects on Wikipedia—administrators here staunchly disagree with editors who do this. The next step when you've been reverted for redirecting a non-notable article should be AfD. Either way, this practice needs to stop because I do not think Sims2aholic8 is able to differentiate between what is notable and what isn't: if you are an editor who believes You Let Me Walk Alone should be redirected, I don't trust your judgement on anything music-related and I don't think very many editors would.
Wikipedia does not advocate for redirecting every stub on the website, especially ones with a claim of notability like reaching number one, charting in multiple countries and being performed at Eurovision. Ss112 07:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112: The songs you have reverted have now been submitted for AfD to gain some closure. Let's see what happens. Sorry for trying to improve this place, it won't happen again. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am in full agreement with Ss112 assessment of this situation.BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can we start by quitting the passive aggressive comments? Or discrediting other editors based on a single action? Thanks. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- First off, I am stating my opinion. I don’t disagree with all of the redirects. But it is pretty clear that mass-redirects of song articles, songs that have charted in several countries should not have happened. This is not a single action, it is systematic redirects of a large amount of articles, the delinking if said articles on hundreds of pages. Based on a very weak consensus. With that being said, again, I don’t disagree with all of the redirects, but more discretion and thought should have been used.BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah okay, I was mostly commenting on Ss112 saying he did not trust Sims2aholic8 because of one edit on You Let Me Walk Alone. I'm not sure what you mean with very weak consensus though. Do we have to wait until everybody responds before we are able to make improvements? In that case we'd never get anything done. You were the only one who opposed, you gave one argument, I questioned your argument and you didn't respond. Three people there agreed the redirecting should happen. That's stronger consensus than we normally get on this WikiProject. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It was not one edit by Sims at all. It was many. I am saying I do not trust the judgement of editors who would redirect articles for songs that went to number one, several of which I came across that had been redirected (City Lights (Blanche song) and Nobody but You (Cesár Sampson song) namely), and I stand by that. I am not saying and never suggested Sims has never made good contributions, but I don't trust their judgement in this manner based on what I've seen. On articles that get attention at AfD, if you nominated an article that was a number-one single in Austria, Belgium, or Estonia, people there would also question your judgement and it would probably be closed as a WP:SNOW keep. I really hope neither you nor Grk1011 are suggesting articles that charted in 10 countries should be redirected. This mass redirection needs to stop because this blanket approach is clearly not working. I went through Sims' edits and there were something 10 redirects made in three minutes. There is no way that is quality control or being careful. It looks like a one-size-fits-all approach, and judging by BabbaQ and another editor who commented at AfD disagreeing (saying that songs merely being Eurovision entrants is enough notability) there is disagreement on this approach out there. Ss112 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah okay, I was mostly commenting on Ss112 saying he did not trust Sims2aholic8 because of one edit on You Let Me Walk Alone. I'm not sure what you mean with very weak consensus though. Do we have to wait until everybody responds before we are able to make improvements? In that case we'd never get anything done. You were the only one who opposed, you gave one argument, I questioned your argument and you didn't respond. Three people there agreed the redirecting should happen. That's stronger consensus than we normally get on this WikiProject. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- First off, I am stating my opinion. I don’t disagree with all of the redirects. But it is pretty clear that mass-redirects of song articles, songs that have charted in several countries should not have happened. This is not a single action, it is systematic redirects of a large amount of articles, the delinking if said articles on hundreds of pages. Based on a very weak consensus. With that being said, again, I don’t disagree with all of the redirects, but more discretion and thought should have been used.BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so here are my thoughts on this. I did check some of the articles Sims2aholic8 redirected earlier, and all of them were non-notable stubs. I do see now that some were actually notable, but I also don't really see the issue with that because it can be easily reverted.
- You're right, edit warring is indeed never okay. But to call a single revert on the Don't Come Easy page by Sims2aholic8 an "edit war" is a huge stretch. Normally not even three reverts are considered edit warring. There is also no requirement at WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT to immediately list it at AfD once someone disagrees, although it is suggested. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that Sims2aholic8's efforts here have been in good faith and he didn't set out to upset anyone. We are a small group of editors who actively manage thousands of Eurovision articles. It's not any one person's fault that the initial discussion was not well attended. And honestly after taking part in it, I thought, well I guess that's everyone who cares. If anything, that made it more convincing since we (or I) already sometimes feel we are in this alone. A smaller scope of articles was seen as a benefit. Being redirects, I also found it very easy to undo if another editor wanted to step up and improve the article. If someone did undo the redirect, however, I would hope that they would actually improve the article instead of returning it to a poorly sourced stub. A lot of these articles have just fallen off people's radar, which to me, solidifies their lack of notability. As the redirect scope moved from phase to phase, I do see an issue where perhaps editors who focus on song articles should have been alerted to that part of the discussion since it's a shared topic. Older song articles don't really have much of a future and the redirects are valid, but yes, some of these newer ones may well be great as stubs for the time being.
- For the newer song articles/stubs (most of which have been created by BabbaQ btw, so I can see where your anger may be coming from) there is a bit of time where they can flourish, but sometimes they really aren't notable enough per guidelines. They may not chart or chart poorly, or their entire prose might be a copy/paste from a Country in article. I think the takeaway here needs to be a better framing of not just the notability requirements, but at what point a notable subject is acceptable as a redirect. If you have a song, it makes no sense to go read a stub article about it when a Country in article has so much more information on it. It may be notable because of Eurovision and deserve its own article, but what about when that becomes a disservice to the reader? Grk1011 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- A song or any article does not need to be redirected simply because it is a stub. It does not need to keep being edited or being paid attention to justify keeping an article on it. Several of these, as I just pointed out, were articles for number-one songs (City Lights (Blanche song), Nobody but You (Cesár Sampson song)). Most editors who frequent AfD and music topics are never going to say a number-one song should not have an article no matter how short the article may be. AfD editors also say that even if they may vote !keep, they have no obligation to "fix", "improve" or expand those articles (and yes, a great many people who are nominating articles take issue with that, but that's the way it is). A blanket approach is very clearly not working, because there is clearly no quality control or individual assessment going on. 10 articles being redirected in a couple of minutes is not acceptable. Songs that went to number one in countries like Austria, Belgium and Estonia is not acceptable. It was very clearly carte blanche editing based on two or three agreements that did not seem to me to be saying "yes, redirect every single Eurovision-related stub article". I get that that thread got more engagement than most threads get here, but Eurovision song articles do not belong to this WikiProject or any group of editors, so I think this would need wider input if it were to even be done or to continue, but one-size-fits-all redirecting is not working here, there are a great many clearly notable topics being caught up in this and I do not think that is acceptable to continue going on. Ss112 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Jochem van Hees: Every admin I've spoken to has told me that it is never acceptable to re-redirect a song article with a claim to notability (as basically all of these redirected songs have—by being Eurovision entrants) and the next step is AfD. I never claimed this was set out in a policy, but WP:BRD applies. You will also find plenty of editors who say if you've been reverted for a bold edit you made and then you revert that revert, that is starting an edit war. Per WP:Edit war, it is broadly defined as being a series of back-and-forth reverts, which the example of Don't Come Easy was, and I'm convinced the only reason Sims stopped is because Tobyjamesaus expanded the article, which he didn't even need to do. There is never an excuse to edit war, and editors have been blocked before for not even breaking WP:3RR. For you to say or suggest it's only edit warring if you go up to or past three reverts worries me. Ss112 14:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, could you please assume good faith? You keep assuming things about Sims2aholic8 based on nothing but guesses. How do you know that Sims2aholic8 didn't look at the articles before redirecting them all at once? Why are you so convinced that Sims2aholic8 would continue reverting? Why don't you just ask him about it, rather than being super aggressive towards him? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the edit warring: BRD is optional, not policy. There are many cases where people revert multiple times and that's no problem at all, as long as it doesn't go on for too long. If there is indeed that much consensus that even a single revert is unacceptable in this context, why hasn't that just been added to WP:BLAR then? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- No one is aggressive. It is within @Ss112: rights to question these mass-edits. And quite frankly when doing mass-edits you need to be ready to be questioned about it. BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't trust your judgement on anything music-related and I don't think very many editors would.
10 articles being redirected in a couple of minutes is not acceptable.
I'm convinced the only reason Sims stopped is because Tobyjamesaus expanded the article
- This comes across as quite aggressive to me. Yes it's totally good to question some of the edits that Sims2aholic8 made. It's not good at all to start accusing and discrediting him like that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, @Jochem van Hees: I think me clarifying no policy applies by saying
I never claimed this was set out in a policy, but WP:BRD applies
means I understand BRD is not a policy. That doesn't mean editors should not follow it, because they should, and I'm not seeing the reason in questioning it here. That is not what this discussion is about. You are continuing to ignore that I still question Sims' judgement because they redirected articles for number-one songs and songs that charted in 10 countries, including a top three placement in one. I'm sure there are dozens more redirects of number-one song articles I missed. That's too much collateral and recklessness. It's not wild shots or "guesses" about somebody's motive, it's what I saw. If all you're going to do is continue to attack my tone, I'm done here, because that's not why I started this discussion and not the topic at hand, but it's what you're focusing on. I already went to Sims' talk page, by the way. I posted on multiple talk pages—informed an admin, posted here, and posted on their talk page.Why are you so convinced that Sims2aholic8 would continue reverting? Why don't you just ask
. What? I already saw two instances (and those were the only instances I saw that they were reverted) where they reverted the editors who questioned them. You acknowledged Don't Come Easy yourself, and Sims said Toby expanded the article, which seems to me to be the reason they stopped. It's not some wild shot in the dark reason I suggested as to why they stopped reverting—Sims suggested it themselves. - In this case, they have said they won't continue re-reverting, so great. They shouldn't anyway, nor should anybody else. The next step if you disagree with any reverts I, BabbaQ, or any other editors who notices one of these or any redirect of an article with a valid claim of notability would be AfD, not to edit war. Please feel free to ask an admin whether it's OK to continue reverting somebody if they reverted you boldly redirecting an article, even if you consider it a "non-notable stub", or whether you need to go to three reverts for it to be considered edit warring or for you to face any consequences for it. That is a wild hot take on edit warring and out of step with every admin I've spoken to. All that being said: I'm not here to continue debating that point or debate the semantics of what edit warring is with you. Mass redirection of articles with claims of notability like this is never a good idea and it should stop. Ss112 15:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I am focussing on your tone first, because we can't have a constructive discussion if you are constantly attacking Sims2aholic8 like that. I'm happy to discuss the song articles with you if you first just calm down.
- I did not know about the discussion at Sims2aholic8's talk page. Yes, it looks like he has also been aggressive to others. But he has also said:
I really am truly sorry for everything that has happened here, it was never my intention to cause this much chaos or anger from anyone on here
. Clearly Sims was acting in good faith here, and I hope you are too. I think it's best if you two apologise to one another. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)- I acknowledged Sims was acting in good faith (even if I very strongly disagree) and their apology—that's not what this discussion is about, nor is whether I apologise to them or not. Now, that being said, there are too many song articles that were redirected that should be questioned or reverted to go through them individually with you or anybody. I'm saying mass redirection of stub Eurovision topics overall should stop because of the collateral and clearly notable topics that have been caught up in it all. A suggestion: perhaps Sims should to go to AfD with the more concerning ones instead of redirecting them? Or tag them for notability? That sounds like a good compromise to me. Based on an editor already saying so at AfD, I am sure there are plenty more editors out there who would argue that because these songs are Eurovision entrants that alone makes them notable regardless of whether they charted or achieved anything else. Ss112 15:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, the mass redirecting should stop; there clearly is no consensus for it anymore. I'd be willing to go through some of the redirected articles and restore the ones that are notable, potentially expanding some of them.
- I actually had the impression that there was consensus against the idea that participating in Eurovision on its own makes you notable. There are multiple examples of Eurovision contestants's articles that did not survive AfDs (some examples I remember are Jean Jacques, Chris Baldo and Elis Mraz), and there's also WP:ONEEVENT which states that these articles can better be redirects to the event. I think the same argument can be applied for songs. If the only info about it is its Eurovision participation, why not just cover it at the article about the Eurovision participation? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well that's why I didn't revert all of them. I only restored the ones with (what I thought was) substantial charting from the last month earlier. I'm still not sure if being a Eurovision entrant alone makes a song notable, but the idea is out there and it is why I left the Eurovision song stubs alone each year when it came around, as I assumed that others thought this alone made them notable as well. I suppose there's room to raise that idea (Eurovision alone making something notable) in a separate and more neutrally started discussion. Ss112 16:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I can't emphasize Jochem's point enough, though the case for it is stronger for biographical articles as opposed to songs. No matter how many times @BabbaQ: writes in an AfD that they meet general notability guideline and "are always kept", so many have been deleted or redirected through the process. There is no consensus to keep these articles solely because of Eurovision. This has been reinforced time and time again through those AfDs that it's not a hard and fast rule. I have no problem reviewing each article individually through a wider discussion process. However, I do have a problem with a certain type of misleading response and !vote, a behavior which even extends to improperly closing a discussion as no consensus while also being the only editor in opposition. Grk1011 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't need an apology, nor am I expecting one, but thanks Jochem for trying and for the defence. Maybe my language previously had been a bit short, but I did feel somewhat provoked in the previous discussions on my talk page, and for that I will again apologise. Emotions can run high on here which can lead to some explosive results. It's important to remember though that we are all humans, we are all volunteers, no one has to be here, so let's just try to treat everyone with respect.
- I have never set out to say that the subjects of these articles weren't notable, but just that in their current form it felt better for me for them to be blanked-and-redirected to a more suitable article that covered all details of the country's participation, especially when the vast majority of the articles' contents were clear replicas from said articles. I still believe many of my redirects were valid, but clearly there were a few out there which you felt were undeserved, and at this point I will leave those that you have determined should remain well enough alone.
- Looking into 2020 and 2021 articles I can still see many examples where I believe WP:BLAR is warranted, but now I fear any edit I make in this regard is likely to be questioned and I will open myself up for further aggression. So I'll ask this forum, do you think, for example, the contents of Da vidna or Alive (Vincent Bueno song) or Freaky! or Looking Back (Aksel Kankaanranta song) warrant a separate article and shouldn't be redirected under WP:NSONG to the much broader country articles? Of course given 2020 the contest was cancelled, potentially the notability in that case may be more questionable, but looking into 2021 there are other similar examples, such as The Lucky One (Uku Suviste song), Omaga, Amen (Vincent Bueno song) and You (Tornike Kipiani song). All stubs, all with very little information and which have been barely touched since they were created a year or two ago. As was raised previously, we can't always ask someone else for every single edit, since then nothing would ever get done, so right now it feels to me like if I try to contribute I'm going to get shot down hard, so why bother? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well that's why I didn't revert all of them. I only restored the ones with (what I thought was) substantial charting from the last month earlier. I'm still not sure if being a Eurovision entrant alone makes a song notable, but the idea is out there and it is why I left the Eurovision song stubs alone each year when it came around, as I assumed that others thought this alone made them notable as well. I suppose there's room to raise that idea (Eurovision alone making something notable) in a separate and more neutrally started discussion. Ss112 16:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is quite easy, Ss112 reverted the redirects of the articles that follows section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. And is within guidelines. Sims, you can not seriously think that doing mass-redirects would go unnoticed. Especially when you redirect several articles that are clearly ”not simply a stub”.BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: I resent the implication that you feel I did this out of spite or I have some kind of vendetta. I thought I was doing something helpful in tidying up a series of articles which offered a small amount of information, the large majority of which was already included elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm getting very sick of being constantly attached and belittled for trying to do the right thing here. I will also say that the definition of what constitutes a stub article is not exactly concrete, so yes I was being bold when I thought I could see an opportunity to cut down on some of the clutter that exists on here, but I assure you it was done with the best of intentions, and not as a personal attack on you or anyone out there. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I acknowledged Sims was acting in good faith (even if I very strongly disagree) and their apology—that's not what this discussion is about, nor is whether I apologise to them or not. Now, that being said, there are too many song articles that were redirected that should be questioned or reverted to go through them individually with you or anybody. I'm saying mass redirection of stub Eurovision topics overall should stop because of the collateral and clearly notable topics that have been caught up in it all. A suggestion: perhaps Sims should to go to AfD with the more concerning ones instead of redirecting them? Or tag them for notability? That sounds like a good compromise to me. Based on an editor already saying so at AfD, I am sure there are plenty more editors out there who would argue that because these songs are Eurovision entrants that alone makes them notable regardless of whether they charted or achieved anything else. Ss112 15:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, @Jochem van Hees: I think me clarifying no policy applies by saying
- No one is aggressive. It is within @Ss112: rights to question these mass-edits. And quite frankly when doing mass-edits you need to be ready to be questioned about it. BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I no longer am actively editing Eurovision-related articles, but have seen these mass redirections in my watchlist and have gotten countless talk page messages as I had uploaded much of the non-free media featured on these articles. Thank you for posting this. There was zero reason for these mass redirects, especially for the songs which were indisputably notable. If stubs are so bothersome, then improve them. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I redirected/moved material mainly for earliest contests’ songs, which repeated material at targets (besides lyrics) and those with just some 1/2 UNsourced sentences for covers. I added sources + material and expended several songs articles, and moved info-bits if “country-year” exist (otherwise didn’t redirect). Agree that song’s Eurovision notability is satisfied by another frame (contests/country-year/lists). I do also stress Ss112 point for popular achievements, as articles Sims2aholic8 redirected such as Spain’s 1961-song (sourced movie-performance) needs deciding to keep or move movie-bit to current “country-year” target.
- Needs to add it’s concerning “Sims2aholic8” that from the beginning you literally pointed chart-success for notability-“Keep”, also why I didn’t redirect 1950-60s charting-songs, but afterwards you redirected those. Administrator "SilkTork" noted you to notice material, you realized yourself to move charts info to “country-year” as I can support, but again days later you stopped moving to this same targets. A duality for same situation violates any-one guideline so in such case needs re-discussion on which one path.
- Another reason I started redirecting-merging songs (apart from agreeing on specific articles and practice redirect); is your previous massive “country-in-year” redirects “Sims2”, where I asked to notice extra-material. You immediately started and already dropped such for 195Os selections. Only after I merged one and restored another redirect, you communicated and admitted you didn’t properly read articles. You were careful after, but soon kept blanking extra-material. So it’s a snowball of losing two-sets of articles+material. Example “Israel-1990” had sourced-exposure you blanked-redirected to song – then redirected the song to general/list article.
- I also have to share I’m baffled from your complete delete of all my lyrics-moves and changing my redirects to specific tables (anchors) within "list of participants" a month after I started when you were aware of my work before, and further gaslight my edits as “haphazard” or “literally lifting-shifting material”, especially seeing now how you express offense/unappreciated feel. I initially summarized “copy-pasting” to credit others, then made further edits with summaries “splitting/shaping/rearranging” which took me hours on each target. I also added/moved translation-source rather as external-link or even paragraph-attached (as consensus for lyrics on songs articles).
- Further if I would have known you resist I would have stopped/discussed/omit some “between-the-lines” you find subjective, or you should have. Otherwise the lyrics quotations for free-English meaning are valid-sourced. I would have also been happy to know and redirect to anchors; instead of a detrimental time-energy of duplicate work for both of us. Throughout January we were in parallel contact on another discussion, and you saw one instance (Sweden 1959 song) where I summarized “moving lyrics” (since you reverted a “restore” back to my redirect). Your summaries and no other communication at times dispirit aside the concern about your repeated actions ,and some others instances as the way you talked to an IP who also asked you about removing songs. I contributed gradually for 15 days, more than 80 hours seeing nobody resisted also to where I targeted. I sincerely hope you can understand how I and maybe others also sometimes find it very hard to get things done or feel acknowledged, even when I still believe you are mostly eager and that you don't intend to offend others.
- Another thing “Sims2”: de-linking songs-titles from Eurovision-contests, disadvantage the redirects to deeper song-selection info (“country-year”) or songwriters (“Eurovision participants” lists). Once "Zouki08" and I suggested adding songwriters+broadcasters. Few months ago you eventually added songwriters to "participants’ lists". Now contests only link countries to general “country-in-Eurovision” which doesn't target this info, and unfortunate for readers and your work.
- I also point to Grk1011: Greece-1980 “Autostop” (you added lyrics-source), has a covered-elsewhere-irrelevant details about the singers; as redirect-rational you supported, while you blank articles where “BabbaQ” adds charts, with this discussions to stop redirecting for now stressing chart-notability. Don't follow your actions.
- Ultimately, some “country-year” explain charts, and songs articles show lyrics; I contribute my view for paragraph on “country-year” if exists (or restore) if only few sentences on a song. Otherwise will participate in AFDs if held later. אומנות (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Small notes for spokespersons
This has been discussed two times before: a year ago on this talk page, and earlier this month on the ESC 2022 talk page. The first discussion resulted in removing the notes for the articles of JESC editions, but I never got around removing them for the ESC editions. There are two main arguments for their removal:
- What things to mention in the notes and who does or does not get a note is currently unclear and inconsistent.
- The notes may imply that they are the reason why those people were selected as spokesperson, when that isn't always the case.
The only advantage of the notes that I can think of is that they add some context; otherwise it's just a list of names. However, I think that if you are actually interested in this, you can still easily go to that person's own article to find much more info about them, so not much is lost here. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's unclear what the inclusion criteria for these notes would be or how it could be applied. I fear that "context" is exactly what bullet point 2 is trying to avoid as there is no selection criteria for spokespersons overall and it's just sort of whoever the broadcaster wants. I find adding the notes to be misleading. You can click the person's name if they have an article and if the don't it's probably because they haven't met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (i.e. aren't notable to begin with). Grk1011 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree. There doesn't seem to be any particular criteria set out for why these individuals were selected, except perhaps that they need to be able to speak English (or French) at a reasonable level? It's been a mix of past participants, TV hosts, other singers and performers, so including notes for some individuals where there is a past ESC/JESC connection is somewhat inconsistent since not every individual will have a past connection. Clicking the link to the individual's article provides any required context, and adding interlanguage links for those without an article on the English Wikipedia helps to plug any gaps for those which are notable but not so in the English-speaking world. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Scoreboard tables
@Jaguar83: I formatted the scoreboard table in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 article in exactly the same way as in all the other articles about Eurovision Song Contest editions. The first table contains the detailed jury score, along with a summary of the televoting score; the second contains the reverse. Now that I look at it though, maybe it is a bit confusing to have the televote total in the jury vote table. It may be worth looking into changing all of the tables, which is why I'm starting this discussion at the WikiProject talk page. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. It's an unnecessary source of confusion and I'd be in favour of removing unrelated scores from the tables. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the tables would be easier to follow if all three totals (tele, jury and overall) were included at all times. Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎ 15:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I too felt few days ago it's somewhat confusing and anyway lacking to see the total for the one voting-sector in the other's sector table, while without an ad-hock total for the table's detailed sector; after seeing the 2 first comments here before "andreyyshore" commented, I started thinking too it probably will be best to show both sectors totals + overall in every semi and final tables, so I'm with andreyshore view. אומנות (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand now. Apologies, @Jochem van Hees, thank you for clarifying.
- I would say that having both scores on each table would be best as it provides the sum of the votes on that table at a glance while also showing the other total and complete total. Jaguar83 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Taking a look at these tables once again, I would also agree that perhaps the best solution here would be to have three columns in each tables, showing the total points, televoting points and jury points received, which would provide a bit more context for the readers. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I too felt few days ago it's somewhat confusing and anyway lacking to see the total for the one voting-sector in the other's sector table, while without an ad-hock total for the table's detailed sector; after seeing the 2 first comments here before "andreyyshore" commented, I started thinking too it probably will be best to show both sectors totals + overall in every semi and final tables, so I'm with andreyshore view. אומנות (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)