Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Hovig

I believe that the Cypriot representative should be simply written as Hovig since that's the stage name he's going to compete under in ESC (Just like Zoe did last year) AdamantiosK (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It should go under as the name used on the article, regardless of the name the EBU will show. It is policy to use WP:COMMONNAME. Wes Mouse Talk 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Moldova's Participation?

I noticed that there was no mention of Moldova's participation in the 'Other Countries' section and was wondering if there was any relevant/reliable information about the likelihood of their reappearance. 124.190.53.91 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There's been nothing, neither from the broadcaster nor in the media. In previous years Moldovia haven't confirmed their participation until October, so the silence is nothing unusual. Robyn2000 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Most pictures are missing

please fix the broken links.84.212.111.156 (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Map

One day ago since Montenegro & Azerbaijan confirmed and the map is still not informed.. Someone should take the initiative --JeanisDEL (talk), 24 September 2016, 9:39 (UTC)

And there is a real world out there beyond the Wikipedia one. We don't all sit here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week waiting to update a map. It will be done in due course. Please be patient on these matters, rather than making unwanted posts like that. Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Wesley Mouse Ok I didn't say something bad.. No personal attacks please. JeanisDEL (talk), 29 September 2016, 7:44 (UTC)
@JeanisDEL: I never even said you did say something bad, nor were there any personal attacks. To clarify what I said... you post a comment noting that it has been a day since Montenegro and Azerbaijan had confirmed and that the map had not been updated. You further went on to say that someone should take "initiative", which basically implies that the map should be changed immediately and you gave off the impression of it being a matter of urgency. One needs to bear in mind that the map is not located on Wikipedia, it is actually stored at WikiMedia Commons, as the map is used across ESC2017 articles for various languages. It comes down to A) whoever has the knowledge to change a map and B) the capacity to upload/update on commons. That is why you will find times when the map hasn't been changed for days. But it will be changed at some point, or there could be a technical issue on commons which is prevent the map to update properly. So to make a post like you did saying the map needs doing immediately, is not helpful. If in future you see the map is not updated, visit the commons page for it and leave a note there, which is the correct discussion page. Wes Mouse  T@lk 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry. --JeanisDEL (talk), 29 September 2016, 9:52 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.241.161 (talk)

Macedonia has confirmed its' singer, so we may want to change the map color of the country to green. Gjovanovski (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gjovanovski: The map file is located on a community server at WikiMedia Commons. You'll need to visit Commons:File talk:ESC 2017 Map.svg if you wish for the change to be made quicker. Wes Mouse Talk 16:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is rumours of cancellation

according to a post on escforum.net it will be decided on december 8 if the contest will be held or canceled.84.212.111.156 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so until then it is only rumors and speculation. Lets wait and see.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
It's completely false information, read the fb post. --Stryn (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Stryn: is it only rumours? Not according to this. Wouldn't be the first time that a winning country didn't host. 1980, early 70s, and not to forget the 60s. The EBU are discussing it at the AGM on 8 December. It is likely a new host will be found pending what is discussed at the AGM (annual general meeting). Wes Mouse Talk 22:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wesley Mouse: So you think it is likely that another country will host? --BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe it is likely. I can't remember where I found it (I'll look), but apparently the quote was taken out of context and he was explaining that previously they were behind three months, but now only one month, and that progress was beginning to go smoothly. Until there's a statement by the EBU regarding the possible change of the host country (which I don't believe there will be), I'd avoid mentioning this. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
A report by Eurovoix clearing everything up. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I wasn't saying that another country will/would host, merely that with the unpredictability of Eurovision lately, that anything is possible and another country could host. It wouldn't be the first time it has happened. Don't forget the UK has hosted 8 times, yet only won 5. And despite Switzerland winning in 1956, it was Germany who hosted in 1957, because Switzerland didn't want to host twice in succession. Who would have thought Australia would have become a regular participant? 10 years ago if someone were to have said they would, we would have laughed and thought it was an April Fools joke. So yes, Eurovision-unpredictability means absolutely anything could happen. Expect the unexpected. Wes Mouse Talk 15:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please unprotect this article

There is no reason whatsoever why this article should be protected, other than wiki elites trying to control pages they believe they own. The protection was put in place before the 2016 contest had even broadcast. This article should follow the tenant of wikipedia that it is an online encyclopedia open for all to contribute and edit. Please remove protection for this page. 204.102.74.248 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

While that may seem like a good proposition, vandals (see WP:Vandalism) often ruin the chance of that happening because of their non-constructive edits. When that happens, it wastes the time of the Wikipedians dedicated to the page to revert the edits and whatnot. That's why pages like this are often protected to circumvent that. I'm sorry about that; If vandalism was not a prevalent issue, then this would most likely be open for anyone to edit, but, it is. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedians dedicated to the page" implies the wiki elite who believe they own pages. A complete contradiction of why wikipedia was created and it's aims. "Vandalism" is one thing, but many 'vandals' have tried to add constructive and legitimate edits and have been prevented from doing so. You only need to look at the 2016 article where a 'vandal' added the correct voting running order and spokespersons, but the 'owner' of the page refused to allow them to edit the article as they were not one of the "wikipedians dedicated to the page". They wanted the glory of adding the data for themselves so as not to have their expert authority and recognition damaged by some 'Johnny come lately' who had information they did not. Is that vandalism? You are making a mockery of wikipedia and all it is meant to stand for. Congratulations. 204.102.74.248 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, that running order was unsourced, and that person was also insulting other people who contributed a large chunk to the page. Even if that person worked for SVT, it could not be reliable via WP:Primary sources. Secondly, if you were really trying to insult me, then you're here for the wrong reasons. This is a place for formal discussion about the information displayed on the Eurovision Song Contest 2017; If you're looking to denigrate my character, then go to my talk page or take it elsewhere. Have a good day. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While I can sympathise with your frustration here, I must stress that Wikipedia conduct and carry out protection policies for a reason. It is to prevent extreme vandalism on articles. I'm sure when you visit Wikipedia that you would like to know what you are reading is 100% accurate and no lies are printed within articles. Take for example this edit in which a vandal changed the word 'Turkic' to 'Kebab'. And this edit in which an IP user vandalised by adding points for a contest that has not even happened yet. That is why we protect articles from time-to-time. If you are one of the lucky IPs who respect Wikipedia and do not vandalise articles, then there is nothing wrong in creating an account, which will allow you to edit protected articles without any stress. @PootisHeavy: please can you make sure you follow talk page guidelines accordingly and place indents when making new threads using the : button. Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Will do in future edits to the talk page. Thanks for telling me. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I meant new comments, not new threads. Starting to turn into a bad day at the office for me . Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's fine. Happens to the best of us. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Coffee and cookies are required to keep the energy going . Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha I understand. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
"This is a place for formal discussion about the information displayed on the Eurovision Song Contest 2017". Is it? So why are you making posts as if this was a chat room? What has coffee and cookies got to do with Eurovision or this article? The contributor who added the extremely constructive addition of the 2016 voting running order (whether it was sourced or not) was insulted and belittled. They were told to go away if they had nothing constructive to add. It was an extremely constructive edit and it was added to the talk page, not the article. The 'owners' of Eurovision on wikipedia then deleted the constructive edit, insulted the editor and later buried the constructive contribution by quickly archiving the talk page. Yet the wiki elite who was doing the insulting now writes they were insulted? You can't make it up sometimes. Good luck with your protected page empire. Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.246.145.202 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
So we cannot communicate to each other beyond formal discussion after that? I will reiterate, while the running order was correct, it was not sourced, so therefore, it could not have been included on the page. That goes for the whole of Wikipedia. The person who put it on was very condescending as well when they were (coincidentally) correct, repeating "Nice try, though" and "We beg to differ" over, and over again. I do believe the person who did that as well was blocked for being rude, seen here. I will also reiterate that it is protected to protect against vandalism. The page, as far as I am concerned, will not be unprotected for a long while. Have a good day. --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Correction: it was a different user with an IP, but nonetheless, they all were quite rude to the people on that discussion page. --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
You wrote: "This is a place for formal discussion about the information displayed on the Eurovision Song Contest 2017". So if you are asking can "we" not communicate with other beyond formal discussion, refer to your own patronizing remark and the answer will be revealed. What is standard wikipedia procedure is that when information is added to an article that is not necessarily sourced but clearly is not vandalism, it is more appropriate to add "citation needed" rather than deleting the information. Since the information was on the talk page and not the article, the subsequently patronizing and abusive messages using the royal "we" and accusing the contributor of not adding constructive data was wholly inappropriate and got the response it deserved. It was the wiki elite editor who goes by the name WesMouse who wrote sarcastically "nice try though" after claiming it had "no chance" of being included. Please get your facts right. The contributor then merely repeated the sarcasm. Had I added that data and been patronized, bullied and belittled to the same extent, I would probably have been "rude" too in response. This article should not be protected. It's the same as a wiki elite editor with blocking and locking powers demanding a citation for "the sky is blue" or "the sea is wet". The completely correct data was added to the talk page and subsequently enhanced. The 'owner' of the page deleted it from the talk page, something they had no right or reason to do. That's what talk pages are for. Not for chat and discussion about cookies and coffee. When the data was proven absolutely totally correct, no apology was given for the rudeness the editor was subjected to and the page was quickly archived and hidden to cover the wiki elite editor's tracks. No wonder this site has become a laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.246.145.202 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The 'owner' of the page deleted it from the talk page, something they had no right or reason to do.". I think you will find the content was archived, which is standard procedure when talk pages get lengthy in size. And as for the IP in question on that archived thread, it was pointed out that no bullying or sarcasm was used. And the blocking administrator also [pointed that fact. Wes Mouse Talk 18:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find the person who signs themselves "WesMouse" deleted the information, long before "we" archived it and then "we" restored it. It's quite simple to check back and see. We suggest we do that before posting any further untruths on this page. "WesMouse" deleted the information. That is an incontrovertible fact.186.188.221.150 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Please unprotect this article without any further argument or discussion. WesMouse and Pootisheavy have no authority or right to protect this article. If you refuse, please post here the appeal procedure to go above your heads.24.221.211.32 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Protection levels are put into place for a reason. This article endured severe vandalism, and as a result was placed on semi-protection which is set to expire on 11 December 2016. And yes, neither Pootisheavy or myself (Wesley Mouse is the name, not WesMouse) have authority to protect a page, which is why you will find neither of us protected it in the first place. Administrators have the tools and the authority to protect pages, and @NeilN: placed the protection on the article on 11 June 2016 due to persistent disruptive editing. As for "information being added to an article that is not necessarily sourced"; you're right it is not vandalism, nobody has even stated it was vandalism. What was said is that it was disruptive editing. Wikipedia has rules in place regarding sourcing content, so that we can prove the content is truth and not fake. We are here to write articles based on facts that can be verified with sourced evidence. Wes Mouse Talk 12:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It was not disruptive editing. It was a factually correct addition made to the talk page, not the article itself. Talk pages are set up for that reason and thus it was neither disruptive nor vandalism. If we don't wish to be known as WesMouse then we shouldn't sign all our posts "WesMouse" then we won't be confused and we won't identify you by the wrong name. Will we.186.188.221.150 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Language (featuring disruptive IPs)

Several IPs are current edit warring with each other as to the language(s) of the Spanish song. Editors keep changing it to one of the following: "Spanish"; "English, Spanish"; "Spanish, English". Obviously, one of these is correct. Unfortunately I haven't heard the song yet, so I have no idea which one. Moreover, if there is a sufficient amount of English in the song to warrant tabulation as opposed to a footnote, should English go ahead of Spanish or vice versa? I always thought it was alphabetically-organised, but I haven't been partaking in this project for a long time, and so I understand MOS may have changed in the interim. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin was prime minister in 2009, not president. Smthngnw (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done אומנות (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Executive Producer

Isn't this Stuart Barlow? How come it's TBC? 86.173.54.231 (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: (Re)Protect article to prevent edit attacks

I've been watching this page for the last few days, and I'm seeing a large number of incorrect or deliberately malicious edits going on on the page. I'm a member of several Facebook groups, and several of the members in these groups are doing these for a laugh and not reversing them. I'm wondering whether the discussion needs to be rekindled around protecting edits on the page, so that energy isn't being wasted rolling back deliberately incorrect edits. 59.167.194.19 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

SPAIN: TWO MINUTES OF THE SONG ARE IN ENGLISH. I DON'T REALLY GET WHY PEOPLE KEEP ON CHANGING IT. THE MAIN LANGUAGE (2:06) IS ENGLISH! 37.135.201.106 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

About titles of songs not yet presented...

Some entries on the list refer to songs not yet presented, only their titles are already known, I suggest to add a footnote that reads something like "not yet presented", and/or their date of release, if known. The idea with my suggestion is that, when reading the titles list, we can tell a song which already can be listened to (on Youtube, or other platforms) from one that cannot be found yet.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

Kiev should be changed to Kyiv as per official website and most sources. 202.155.216.30 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

I suggest that Greenland be colored in on the map like the rest of Denmark. 83.54.225.147 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

Idolharambe (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- AxG / ✉  17:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason for ban of Samoilova

In the article it is stated that she was banned "for having violated a ban on direct travel to Crimea from Russia", but the law in question (article 4, section 1) says nothing about "direct travel to Crimea from Russia" it says about "special regime of crossing border of temporarily occupied teritories", so it would be more suitable to say that she was banned for "travelling to Crimea with no permission from Ukrainian government". --Tohaomg (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Using that source to imply something else goes against policies on the synthesis of published material. Combining multiple sources to put forward a point of view that neither of the sources are portraying is best avoided. Using this law in question (article 4, section 1), and other sources that verify the artist being banned would be unethical and misleading. Wes Mouse Talk 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a send a public information request to the Security Service of Ukraine asking to explain legal reasons for the ban? They knew the legal reason better than anyone. --Tohaomg (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tohaomg: unfortunately that would not work either. Contacting a source directly is technically conducting original research, and we are not allowed to do that. It may also cause a conflict of interest and contaminating and/or manipulating sources in order to assist content to be written on Wikipedia. That is a serious violation of rules here. Therefore it would be best to leave the information omitted from the article, than to cause wider problematic issues. Last thing we need is editors from here being blocked for wrongdoing. Wes Mouse Talk 23:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Other awards"

This section is written in a style implying the contest as already occurred, likely pasted from another article. Would someone with permissions be able to fix this until the awards are actually awarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.10.150 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The OGAE section was already in future-tense, as I had worked on that the other day. Had not noticed the other two award sections. But wording has now changed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Wes Mouse Talk 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Developing news about Russia-Ukraine.

The section on Eurovision Song Contest 2017#Russia-Ukraine relations is starting to get very "chunky" and almost looking like an article of its own. With so much being reported in the news and how rapid this story is developing - I think we need to act swiftly before all hell breaks loose (and I can sense that storm brewing). We have an article on Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest, and perhaps following similar conduct in this matter by forking the content into a new article Russia-Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest would help relieve the chunky pressure, whilst keeping content on this very article in brief WP:NPOV summary. The section as it stands is starting to get large, complex, and with disputes already raising chaos. Plus having such article would also allow us to expand in more detail on previous ESC and JESC contests in which issues between the two nations arose. Any objections or opinions? Wes Mouse Talk 23:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems reasonable to do. But you should put some notice, maybe in comments (<!-- and -->) or something, asking editors to contribute to the page Russia-Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest instead of page Eurovision Song Contest 2017. Also, if you are creating a whole article on the item, the other incident came to mind: when in 2007 russians claimed that the song of ukrainian representant Verka Serdyuchka contained words "Russia, goodbye!", but Verka claimed this is not true. Also last year Russia and Ukraine blaimed each other in faking votes for their representatives: Ukraine claimed that russian mobile operator MTS, which has assets in many european countries, faked votes for Lazarev, and Russia claimed that ukrainians living abroad (so called Ukrainian diaspora) pulled Jamala by the ears. I also heard the rumor that MTS ignored russian votes for Ukraine last year, it only a rumor, but I guess it is worth looking up. --Tohaomg (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tohaomg: should the new article Russia-Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest gain enough support to be created, then its content matter should follow the same (or similar) to that of the Armenia-Azerbaijan counterpart. It would concentrate on any notable incidents over the years that involved Russia and Ukraine at Eurovision, bearing in mind of WP:V and WP:RS, and avoiding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. A hidden notice would not be required, as this article would have a hatnote at the top of the relevant section {{More|Russia-Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest}} which would be more prominent and act more significantly than the proposed method. I'll work on a draft in my sandbox for now, and then move the content into mainspace once it is ready and approved. (Although everytime I say that someone gets eager and rushes to create the article as if they are on some point-scoring mission - so I could be wasting my time working on a draft). Wes Mouse Talk 00:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The draft space can be found User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/Russia-Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. Anyone wishing to contribute has my permission to edit the draft in my sandbox. And so when a version suitable for mainspace is ready to go "live" into mainspace, then all of our edits will still be preserved. Wes Mouse Talk 00:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You start, and I will write something tomorrow. I have a middle of the night here. --Tohaomg (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been WP:BOLD and crossed-over the content from this article into the new one at Russia-Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. I'm sure with that start, new content will be added gradually and evolve it into a future good article candidate. Wes Mouse Talk s 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, Russia and Ukraine are in a state of active "hybrid war". However, this page is about Eurovision Song Contest 2017. The incident related to this page is ban of Samoylova entry. So, let's stay closer to the topic. I fixed this part accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

please insert the running order

It have been announced on eurovision.tv so it needs to be done.84.212.111.156 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done a few days ago. Sorry for the delay in replying. Wes Wolf Talk 22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we colour Russia on the map of participating countries from yellow to purple?

Since Russia had an intended entry, but later withdrew, and the purple colour indicates a country that had an intended entry but later withdrew, it would make sense to mark Russia as purple. 79.97.89.198 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)79.97.89.198

I'm not sure why this thread was removed, but I have restored it, so that a full conversational record is visible to everyone. Wes Wolf Talk 22:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Song Title

Please change "Loving For The Both of Us" to "Loving For The Two of Us". It is more correctly translated that way, since 'Dois' means 'Two' and the portuguese word for 'Both' is 'Ambos', which is clearly not in the original title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugueseenglishspeaker (talk • contribs) 08:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to include the word two, I would say "Loving for the Two" would be better, but "Loving for Both of Us" is certainly the best option and it was endorsed by the authors. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Winless Run

The article states that Portgual's win is "the longest winless run by a country in Eurovision history since Finland won the contest in 2006". But it is actually the longest winless run ever: 53 years over 45. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.122.133 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We cannot exactly use the term "ever", as it comes under words to watch, with such proclamations advised to be avoided. Improving the wording to keep a neutral tone would be much preferable. Perhaps along the lines of "Portugal's win is the longest winless run by a participating country since Finland, and the longest in the contest's 62-year history" covers all the bases. Wes Wolf Talk 16:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Returning Participant

Portugal's victory makes them the third returning participant to win a Eurovision, as well as the second in a row(the first was Israel's "Diva" in 1999, and Ukraine's "1944" in 2016). Israel was relegated from the 1996 contest as they did not pass the pre-qualifying round by the European Broadcasting Union. They did not return to the contest until 1998, where they won the contest represented by Dana International's "Diva." Ukraine's state broadcaster, NTU, announced that they would withdraw from the 2015 contest due to financial difficulties and the ongoing Ukraine conflict, but pledged (and was later announced) that they would return to the contest in 2016. That year they were represented by the song "1944" by Jamala, where they won with 491 points under a new voting system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.225.228 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

OK a line has to be drawn on excessive statistical information. We need to avoid WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:TRIVIA. Something of this nature doesn't really make a huge significance or impact on what the article is really about. Let's stick to the main facts, and leave Wikia to the trivial extras. Wes Wolf Talk 00:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017

I want to add the ebu's comment on jamala's stage invasion Andrew Mckenna1 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Mckenna1: provide a source, and somebody would gladly insert the content on your behalf. Wes Wolf Talk 13:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done. @Andrew Mckenna1: Added EBU's comment with a reliable source. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Заманили song

@MykhayloNaumenko:, @Wesley Wolf:. MykhayloNaumenko changed "Zamanyly" to "[[Заманили]]" , which Wesley Wolf reverted. Wesley Wolf said in his edit summary that "Article titles should be in Latin script, not Cyrillic".

I think that the revert was mistaken. Заманили is a valid redirect to the on English-language Wikipedia article on the song Zamanyly. If English speaking people wish to listen to the song and use iTunes, they need only to copy Заманили into the iTunes store search-box and will instantly get two versions of the right song. Whereas if they copy Zamanyly into the Tunes store search-box they will be offered 10 choices, none of which are the right song. it is therefore far more useful to readers to show Заманили than to show Zamanyly; it is worth adding that Zamanyly is merely a transliteration of the word for "lured"; the transliteration has no meaning in English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Toddy1: the change is in compliance with Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles, which is a core guideline and is very explicit in noting that names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Having Заманили as the redirect to Zamanyly, is the correct procedure. It is the actual article that got page moved from Заманили → Zamanyly. Wes Wolf Talk 08:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
But that is not a justification for your reverting the use of [[Заманили]] in this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Toddy1: It is the same reason. This is English Wikipedia, so everything needs to be transliterated. The article title was moved per the policy I pointed out above. Therefore this article needs to have the pipelink to the actual title, and not be WP:EASTEREGG linked. All of the changes are in accordance with WP:TRANSLITERATE and Wikipedia:Romanization. Wes Wolf Talk 08:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
But if readers want to find the song in the real world outside Wikipedia, they need to know the name that it is listed as by English-language sellers, which is Заманили.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
But the policies are there for a reason, and are applied on other titles that uses Cyrillic script. If you're dissatisfied, then I would take the matter up with the ones who create these rules. Even the guild of editors advised WikiProject Eurovision about avoiding this, and always using transliterated text. The song title article itself needs to be in Latin script, per Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles. Which if you look at the article, the Cyrillic transliteration is included in the WP:LEAD. I'm merely apply and following Wikipedia core rules. Wes Wolf Talk 09:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Take Moj svijet for example. The song released in the "real world" used the transliteration "Мој свијет". But because of the rules here in "Wikipedia world", the Latin script is used. Again with the Russian entry in 2003, that used "Не верь, не бойся". But Wikipedia article title used Latin script - "Ne Ver', Ne Boysia". Wes Wolf Talk 09:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The rule concerns article titles. You are interpreting this rule as forbidding the use of cyrillic script in Wikipedia articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually @Toddy1: Wes is correct. This doesn't just apply to song articles titles but to all naming conventions. Alternatives are provided, but the transliteration is used throughout the articles. If you look at the article Beijing, it is called Beijing opposed to "北京", not just in the article title, but everywhere else in the article. The same theory is applicable in the case of songs. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 20:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 16 May 2017

First request

The theme of Celebrate Diversity drew sufficient criticism for an entry under issues. All of the performers were white and the presenters were all men. There are numerous citations to support this. Rainbow chaser (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Diversity" is not that simple. It can be about personality, it can be about national culture, it can be about the participants' backgrounds, it can be about languages (4 of the top 9 songs were sung in a national language; all the non-English songs qualified). Europe is a very heterogeneous continent. Pretty sure it's not the superficial things, like race or gender, that actually make someone unique. Besides, Jimmie Wilson is black, or rather brownish at least. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  12:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC) 
If there are a lot of reliable sources that criticize the theme "Celebrate Diversity" then please add them here and the criticism about the theme can be included in the article. Just like Andreyyshore mentioned "Diversity" can mean a lot of things. For example Isaiah Firebrace is an Australian Aboriginal, Joci Pápai is of Romani descent and Jimmie Wilson who represented San Marino is actually African-American. We had language diversity in that 4 songs this year were sung in a national language and all 4 of them placed very high in the final. Again that is just a few examples of diversity in the contest. However if there are a lot of reliable sources that criticize the theme please add them here and the criticism then can be added to the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Second request

Please change "Director" from Ola Melzig to Troels Lund and Alexander Kolb. Ola Melzig is the head of show (also called head of production), a producing role. Troels Lund and Alex Kolb are the television directors for this production. 108.223.71.57 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done a quick web search about this, and the only source I can find is from IMDb, which Wikipedia discourages from using. However, I shall not give up as there has to be another viable source out there which can verify these people. Wes Wolf Talk 18:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've just done a freeze-frame of the closing credits at 3h 43m 37s on YouTube, and it shows the director as Ladislaus Kiraly. Troels Lund was the camera director, with Alex Kolb as the co-director. The director field for the infobox would really need to show Kiraly, rather than Melzig, Lund, or Kolb. Wes Wolf Talk 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
To be consistent with previous Eurovision wikipedia articles, and other multiple-director productions documented on wikipedia and other sources (although what is most relevant here is the established convention used by the hard-working volunteer editors of this site), all three persons should be credited. I would like to request from the editors of this page that this be done. Eurovision is unique in its use of qualifiers "multi camera", and the likes, which are usually prohibited by the Directors UK, Directors Guild America, and so on. They are intended to denote specific roles, not to strip any given member of their credit for their work directing. SkyMark (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@SkyMark: I'm not quite sure if that is what the parameter for the infobox is referring to. Template:Infobox song contest notes the "director" parameter one "who directs the contest", which would be Ladislaus Kiraly who directed the entire production. Lund and Kolb's role as camera directors and only directed the camera operators. They would (I presume) have taken instructions from Kiraly, who's role as director was for the entire production (covering what the template appears to point towards). Wes Wolf Talk 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wesley Wolf: Thank you for your prompt response and bringing that source to my attention. I would clarify that Lund and Kolb are multi-camera directors rather than camera directors, which only describes the environment in which they are directing vs what they are directing. I.e. a director would be a multicamera director vs a single camera director (a rarely used term, with single camera productions being in the majority). I would reference back to Eurovision 2013 and 2016, both which used the term "multi-camera director" to describe Daniel Jelinek and and Robin Hofwander, who were subsequently credited on Wikipedia. SkyMark (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@SkyMark: it is possible for the infobox template to be altered without any controversy so that it would read Director(s) in the event of multiple directors. But in doing so, would we need to stipulate the specific directorship role each person had? And how long would the list of directors become? If such lists became too long, would we end up reverting back to just listing the director of the entire contest? These are points to consider and more likely to be raised in the event that a request for comment was initiated to discuss changes to the template. You're welcome to open a debate on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page, and see what other members feel on this issue. Wes Wolf Talk 00:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you this is a very valid counter-point that you make. I feel that the difference between "director" and "multicamera director" is widely enough understood to be largely trivial and unique to Eurovision (whereas most productions adhere to a one director per picture rule), that reflecting this is best done as was done in the Eurovision 2016 wikipedia entry, sans any change to the infobox, which listed three directors without specific directorship, as it could be assumed that outside of Eurovision, any one would have been individually given the credit "Directed by..." that is typically used to determine which director is publicly listed. In this case, the line at which no additional variants of directors would be listed is based off of the industry principle that "other" jobs including the word director (Art Director, 1st Assistant Director, Stage Director) are not in fact "director" jobs, but simply contain the word, whereas Director, TV Director, and Multicamera Director all describe the same position (many guilds have pushed for those qualifiers "TV" "multicam" etc. to be prohibited to avoid this type of confusion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyMark (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@SkyMark: I've undertaken a bit of a brief research into other long-running TV shows and events, such as the most recent 2017 Brit Awards which does not have a director parameter - yet that show would have had a TV director of some capacity. Yet other TV shows use the parameter Directed by being more specific towards a sole-director who directs a show. Using the same "directed by" term on Template:Infobox song contest would help to disambiguate the terminology better and define what the template advises about someone who directs the event. Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits which had a director as well as cameras directors and stage directors, only lists Geoff Posner in the director field. Perhaps this could be a case of rewording that parameter to "directed by..." to remove any ambiguity. Wes Wolf Talk 00:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for undertaking this additional research. I certainly agree. The basis of my belief that all three directors should be credited is rooted in the two prior instances in which a team of multiple directors undertook the show, as Eurovision does not adhere to international conventions having a "directed by" credit, in the same way that the "show and contest producer" as they call it is elsewhere in the world known as a showrunner, or one of multiple executive producers. These two instances, Eurovision 2010, and Eurovision 2016, both credited all directors, but omitted stage directors, assistant directors, etc., which, though they have director in the title, are not directors. SkyMark (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I've placed links onto the specific contests that you have noted in your comment above, in case anyone else wishing to engage in this topic requires easier access to those articles. I do find it interesting that some articles list the actual "Contest Director", whilst a select few list anyone who had "Director" in their job title. We have established that Template:Infobox song contest states the director as being one who directs the contest. Yet we have some articles (like the ones you have noted) are ambiguous as to the specific interpretation of its meaning. I know that we need to be careful not to fall into WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which advises that even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be; that is something to also be considering. Do we need to disambiguate the parameter and give it more definition as to its meaning? If yes, then would a quick check through all the articles and making sure they list only the Contest Director mean more or less work? If no, then would listing all directors on every contest article also mean more or less work? I'm rather glad you have brought this up, as I am finding it fascinating at the ifs and buts and all possible scenarios that could arise as a result. Wes Wolf Talk 01:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing in these questions and leading this interesting discussion. It's rewarding to get to participate in this discussion. From the perspective of accuracy, I think that it is possible to have the most accurate representation of the role if the Template:Infobox song contest were expanded to reflect a person or persons who "Directs the production of Eurovision and whatever is seen & heard in the finished show", a paraphrase of the definition of a director given by the DGA on their published "Crew Job Descriptions". This would additionally account for any instances where the title "director" was omitted alltogether in favor of "Multi Camera Director", such as 2013 and 2016, in which the Grand Final credits each time listed two "multi camera director"s, but no sole "director". This suggested expansion of course only reflects a definition of director with which I am most familiar. If you as the much more experienced wikipedia editor were to make a recommendation to those who edit the template, it would of course make sense to involve a broader range of sources on the definition of the role. SkyMark (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK Discuss 04:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia's withdrawal

The article says that Russia withdrew from the contest.
But I see people at the Russian Wikipedia say that Russia didn't formally withdraw. I didn't really look too much into this, but as far as I understand, it happened somehow like this:

  1. Ukraine bans Samoylova from entering.
  2. Russian First Channel says: "In this case we won't broadcast the 2017 contest."
  3. EBU proposes a few options but Russian First Channel rejects them all and repeats that since the artist they chose was banned from entering Ukraine and therefore cannot participate the channel won't broadcast the show.
  4. EBU replies to First Channel: "If you don't broadcast the 2017 contest, Russia won't be able to take part in it."
    See the official EBU statement here: [1].

That's it. Russia didn't formally withdraw. For some related discussions and articles, see:

--Moscow Connection (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Moscow Connection: Russia did not participate, so a withdrawal of some degree had occurred. The content on Russia-Ukraine during 2017 is only written in brief summary on this article, as there is a more detailed article on their Eurovision/Junior Eurovision relations - Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. Our Russian Wikipedia counterparts may not have an article like EN:Wiki has on the relationship between the two nations. But anything in this Eurovision 2017 article should be kept minimal and brief. In-depth content should be addressed at the appropriate article. But you will find Wikipedia across other languages do not follow the same rules. From what I've seen in my 6-year editorial history, English Wikipedia is more strict on its rules. The EBU statement does state that "Russia will no longer be able to take part" which is an informal type of withdrawal. And The Guardian confirmed it as a withdrawal.[2] So there are a multitude of reliable sources that classify the situation as a withdrawal. Perhaps our Russian Wiki colleagues are not aware of the other sources? Wes Wolf Talk 16:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article "Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017", which is meant to be the most detailed, also says that Russia withdrew. I think, since Russia didn't formally withdraw (as we can see in the official EBU document), we should find some other word to describe what happened.
Yes, I agree that a withdrawal of some degree had occurred, but I still think that now the Wikipedia articles aren't formally correct and we should find a better wording. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I must add I personally don't understand why EBU said what it said in its statement[1]. Cause it's like:
    First Channel: "If we can't participate in it, we won't broadcast it."
    EBU: "If you don't broadcast it, you won't be able to participate in it."
    But I think they both had their reasons. They have lawyers etc who can advice them. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor Moscow Connection: and this is the problem that we have. Wee don't have parameters in the infobox for "absent" or "unofficial withdrawal". And if we did, then the infobox will be as long as the article itself, as people will probably want to fill it with all sorts of other junk. And to be fair it would be Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest, followed by Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017, Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest, and finally Eurovision Song Contest 2017 - the order in which the content would belong. Like I said there are a loads of sources that all class Russia as withdrawn, purely because they "pulled out of competing". To pull out, or be absent from, is a form of withdrawal. And that is the generic term which seems to be used, as it removes the complexity of the whole situation. I'd have to look in the talk archives, but I am pretty certain something was agreed about this. Also can we "ref" any links, as this thread does contain the {{Reflist-talk}} for such instances. Wes Wolf Talk 17:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't assume the ifs and buts as to why the EBU said what they did in their statement, as that is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources. All we know is that Russia applied to participate. Ukraine banned their singer. The EBU offered solutions. Russia declined the offers and decided not to compete in the end - that is a withdrawal. The EBU stated that Russia were "unable to take part", which despite the wording, is also referring to a withdrawal of sorts. So to avoid complex scenarios, withdrawal is more suitable, as long as there is enough explanation into who it all came about, and the statements issued from all 3 sides (Russia, EBU, Ukraine). Wes Wolf Talk 17:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. [T]hat is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources
    — We are on a talk page. Everything you say is also an original thought.
    2. Unability to take part ≠ withdrawal. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well I never expected to be going back to the 2016 contest to figure out how this sort of situation is dealt with, but nevertheless I have done so. Romania were classified as "withdrawn" in 2016 even though they did not "officially withdraw" from the contest. Because TVR was in debt with the EBU, they had their membership suspended and as a consequence where "forced to withdraw". I suppose this is the same in this case, as Russia wanted to take part, the Ukrainian law prevented that, the EBU tried their best to resolve the matter, but as a consequence Russia ended up "forced to pull out" (or withdraw depending on how people perceive the context). If we start changing the wording, then the infobox will be incorrect and would not show Russia as "withdrawn". And I'm not sure why English Wikipedia is trying to be brought into line with Russian Wiki? These are two different Wikipedia, with different rules, and different projects. I do not see any policies that show cross-wiki-rules. Maybe our colleagues at Russia Wikipedia are handling the situation incorrectly? Wes Wolf Talk 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I did write "that is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources" in full and did not miss any letters, so I'm somewhat confused as to why you've written "[T]hat is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources" as if to imply I missed a letter!? And I have never disputed this being a talk page, I am aware of that factor. All I meant was we shouldn't look towards including assumptions into the article as that would be original research. And there is clearly not a better wording for it, as they were absent and force to withdraw because of the situation. It is a withdrawal at the end of the day. Trying to imply it as something completely different will only confuse readers. If we no longer counted this as a withdrawal, how would you handle the content in the infobox? Details would be omitted from it and that would also be "formally incorrect". Keep it simple. It is clear Russia were not at the contest. Sources do use the term withdraw, which covers the WP:V policy. Just because you personally think it is "formally incorrect" doesn't mean you are right, or wrong for that matter. But personal opinion that contradicts what the sources state is rather point-of-view pushing, something which we are not suppose to be doing. Let's not get into complex wording and confuse people. If RU:WIKI wish to deal with it all differently, they are welcome to do so at RU:WIKI. This is EN:WIKI - different rules here I'm afraid. Wes Wolf Talk 18:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Although I may not speak on behalf of Russian Wikipedia, it's probably worth pointing out that Wikipedia and the EBU are different. The EBU must be careful how they phrase everything, as they are obliged to maintain relations with as many countries as possible. Wikipedia, on the other hand, must stick to keeping all content encyclopedic. If this entails antagonizing the subject of an article, so be it.
For example, supposing a country did not formally declare war against another country, but they marched through their lands with an army and destroy everything in their path, we are obliged to report truth as the events that took place, not what the aggressor or victim said took place. We would call this a war, even if the parties involved said it wasn't.
As much as I hate getting into semantics, this is a simple case of definition. If Russia did "pull back", then they have withdrawn. We don't need to labour over the statement of the EBU. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 01:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Russia did not withdraw. Russia simply didn't not agree to two options, both of which would actually fall into the definition of withdrawing / pulling back. (Pulling back with the original plan to bring the performance to Ukraine or withdrawing the artist they selected. Therefore, no, this isn't a simple case of definition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I've read the section on their withdrawal, and it seems appropriate. Even if you argued that Russia did not withdraw, then you would argue that the EBU withdrew Russia's entry. So either way, it is a withdrawal. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I've read this whole conversation and maybe the article should be a little more clear on Russia's participation. Ultimately as the others have mentioned a "withdrawal" did take place in regards to Russia's participation this year regardless if it was their will or not. I've also read the articles in relation to Russia's participation and they do clearly document what happened along with the sources provided. However I think I may have some ideas that may help everyone with Russia's planned participation this year:
  • Leave the infobox alone, Romania is placed as a "withdrawing country" in 2016 and Russia should be placed there as well in 2017.
  • Under incidents change "Russia withdrawal" to "Forced Russian withdrawal" this will better reflect the situation as Russia intended to participate but due to circumstances beyond their control their selected artist couldn't take part after she was chosen. To be fair even though the Russian broadcaster rejected the satellite link the Ukrainian government also rejected it as well. So even if Russia accepted that option the Ukrainian government would have blocked it as well. This new title will also be clearer in that Russia never said they "withdrew" but that the EBU considers not broadcasting the contest a withdrawal.
  • On Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 in the infobox change "Withdrawn" to "Forced withdrawal" again this wording makes it clear that was outside of Russia's control as the selected artist was banned. This will make it similar to Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 where that entry says "Disqualified" instead of "Withdrawn" in the page's infobox. Also change the section that is headed "Withdrawal" to "Forced withdrawal"
@Moscow Connection as the other editors have stated the Russian and English Wikipedias may have different policies and procedures and content from one may not be in the other. In English Wikipedia original research is not allowed in the article. To clarify what they mean by original research I'm going to highlight another example of difference between the two for Eurovision Song Contest 2017 which is in regards to the United States.
  • Russian Wikipedia (via several translators) says that the United States can enter the competition because ABC is an associate member and can take part in the Contest. This is untrue in several ways; for any associate member to participate they must be extended a special invitation by the EBU. The associate member that receives this kind of invitation is SBS for Australia. No other associate member receives an invitation and even Australia isn't guaranteed an invitation every year like an active member of the EBU. This is a big reason why the United States can't participate.
  • Also our broadcaster in the States is Logo TV which is owned by Viacom is not a member of the EBU in any form. If (and I stress "if") the United States ever receives an invitation to participate in Eurovision then the associate member that would receive it would be CBS which is owned by CBS Corporation. The reason CBS would get first right of refusal while Logo broadcasts the contest here is because both Viacom and CBS Corporation is owned by National Amusements and it is very rare for one company to allow another company to show properties it either procedures on its own or licenses from another company. This second reason is an example of original research as there are no sources mentioning that CBS, ABC or NBC could air the contest in Logo's place if we ever got an invitation and is why the United States is listed as an "EBU non-member" in English Wikipedia. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor Alucard 16: I couldn't have worded that any better myself. What you wrote is what I was trying to put across, I just couldn't find the right words. Now if it entailed wording on RVG, VDI, Lenux, or RG45's, then that would be a different matter - as that is the stuff my brain is being stuffed with at the minute with all this IT Advanced training course I'm undergoing. LOL. Wes Wolf Talk 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b EBU Statement
  2. ^ Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (14 April 2017). "Russian withdrawal throws Eurovision politics into sharp relief". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 June 2017.

Final results table

Although the request was deleted, can the table be corrected so that Portugal and Poland are in the right alphabetical order? Alternatively, can the table please be in voting order as all the tables are from 1957-2015. The consensus on wikipedia is that this should be the case.216.216.202.69 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. Are you talking about the participating countries table or the scoreboard table? Both of them are in order of draw, not alphabetical, just as it has been for yonks. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 21:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
For the final scoreboard, scores are listed A-Z. Many have requested that they should be in the order awarded. Starting with Sweden, then Azerbaijan, then San Marino etc etc. This is how the scores are recorded in all wikipedia Eurovision pages from 1957-2015. Regardless, there is currently an error in that Portugal is listed before Poland, so the alphabetical order is not correct. This was requested already, but the entry deleted.216.216.202.69 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Now I see what you're saying. As far as I'm aware, Emreculha was the one who made the scoreboard for the final by copying it from the Turkish page. In other words, there is no reason that the scoreboard is in alphabetical order at all, as it is inconsistent with other Eurovision scoreboards on English Wikipedia. Some unlucky soul is going to have to rearrange the entire thing, as well as the one from 2016. Good spotting though. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 23:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Then Emreculha should be prevented from editing the page as they cannot be relied upon to make accurate, reliable edits. In future, Emreculha should post their requested edits on the talk page and have them either approved or disapproved, with another, trusted editor then making the actual changes to the page. Just like the rest of us. 12.11.80.13 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the page is protected, it's not possible to make the correction. I also think the results should be listed in voting order. It makes much more sense and brings it in to line with all other wikipedia pages.67.180.255.113 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I couldnt understand..Why u want protect the page from me?!? I am not a vandal..I am editor in Wiki for 11 years..Please be polite--Emreculha (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the page is no longer protected. That expired a couple of weeks ago. Anyone can make the change. Contrary to the claims of a particular user, we are actually pretty lenient with who is allowed to edit the page. If you want, you can make the edit yourself. Just expect it to take a while. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting to observe that the page was protected to stop anyone adding "erroneous" data to the article. However, this particular table is in fact incorrect - still, despite several editors pointing out the error - as were several earlier versions, which had incorrect scores posted. Thus those who protected the page are the ones making the errors and those prevented from editing are the ones with the correct data, yet are unable to do anything about it. The irony isn't lost. And contrary to the claims of a particular user, we are only trying to ensure accuracy and should not be abused for doing so.12.11.80.13 (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no cabal. A single editor protected the page, namely Tabercil. It may be hard to understand if you haven't been around as long as some editors here, but several pages do suffer severely in a short period of time when a large group of IP editors start making scores of changes which go unchecked. This is extremely frustrating for editors who have been carefully maintaining the article for a long time, as their hard work can be undone within the time frame of an hour. This is why pages are generally protected when they are otherwise likely to be ruined.
I would avoid using words such as "abuse", especially given that the standard which was required for users to edit the page was an account four-days old with 10 edits. We are all volunteers, and editing Wikipedia is not a privelege. That being said, if you have an edit you would like to make, nobody is stopping you — provided of course that it is constructive. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 04:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Like many, I have watched the warring editors on this page and I have seen editors asking for edits to be made, because they are prevented from doing it themselves, being called "sorry arses" and "losers" amongst other charming epithets. By any measure, that is abuse. I haven't seen you respond anywhere to that editor advising them not to use words such as "sorry arses" and "losers". "Trolls" is another charming word that is often bandied about by a particular editor. As for your comments about the undoing of hard work by editors, that is the challenge of wikipedia. There is even a caveat posted on the wikipedia guidance pages that states that any page can and will be "ruthlessly edited" and thus all editors need to bear that in mind. If you feel so protective of your 'work' and don't like the open nature of wikipedia, I would suggest another, alternative forum is more suitable. Wikipedia is supposed to be open and free to anyone and everyone to make constructive, accurate edits. The undo button is there to correct malicious or erroneous editing. If someone undoes all your hard work, you can undo that undo in a split second, without abusing anybody. I also notice you use the term "we" when responding. Another offensive term. I suspect that if I now started to edit all of the Eurovision wikipedia articles to bring them all into a uniform style, every one of my edits would be undone by a particular editor. Thus I am not going to put in all that hard work just for all that work to be undone. I am sure you understand. The voting table is wrong. It was posted incorrectly. I thought accuracy was the goal. 12.11.80.13 (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"If it quacks like a duck..." You seem to have stated multiple things, so I'll address them separately:
  • Emreculha is not going to be banned from editing this article for not noticing a subtle difference in standards between English and Turkish Wikipedia. That is implausible. They were not being disruptive. I have made many mistakes in my time, just like any other experienced editor. If users were always banned from editing articles when they made mistakes, then Wikipedia wouldn't be half the encyclopedia it is today.
  • You're speaking about Wesley Wolf again, no doubt. You ought to let the matter drop. I don't condone profanity or insults, but you were clearly harassing him. Besides, this has been discussed to death. It's still not too late to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
  • Wikipedia protection is there for a reason. When the third pillar speaks of pages being "mercilessly edited", this is not a welcome mat for new users to launch a blitzkrieg against an article. It is warning against article ownership. WikiProject Eurovision does not own the article, but during high IP traffic, its judgment is prioritized over that of new and inexperienced users. This is not to discourage editing, but to ensure that everybody's time is not spent tracking down and reverting original research and vandalism, which is reasonably difficult when there are ten IP addresses simultaneously editing an article.
  • Please don't take offense at the word "we". As I pointed out before, there is no cabal. Antagonizing experienced editors by suggesting they have nonconstructive motives is pointless. We want these articles to be to a high standard, just as you do.
  • Au contraire, I only revert such edits if they are vandalism or disruptive. In fact, I regularly spend huge amounts of time welcoming new users and thanking them on their talk pages for their contributions. The exception to this is when a user is violating a ban, but this is rare.
  • Remember that we were all once new editors. When I started editing, Wesley Wolf was extremely helpful and always gave me advice. All I had to do was suck up my pride every now and then, because I trusted in his better judgment. Even now, I approach him for advice on tricky scenarios. If you want to constructively edit Wikipedia, whether you like it or not, you will need to get along with other editors.
But anyway, this thread is getting completely off-topic. If you want to reply, please do so at my talk page, not here. The other editor may not appreciate their observation being used to host a debate on Wikipedia editing practices. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 05:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2017/Archive_3&oldid=1161132415"