Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Portugal Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Eurovision Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit war

@Agwjkl: Can you please define what "format" you are correcting with these blanket reverts? All I see is nothing but changes to how things are worded. Both versions seem fine to me. This appears to have nothing to do with format, rather you prefer your version over another editor's. Could you help me understand what specifically you don't like? Examples: rewording and color change, rewording and color change, adding back improper number format with blanket revert. Grk1011 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not just "prefer" my versions over others and I still incorporated parts of the edits I found valuable, and I have lots of respect for them for editing the page if they thought it lacked information and they wanted to add it, beacuse that is what Wikipedia stands for. What I did not appreciate was the fact there was excess information that had never been added before on Festival da Canção sections and that I do not see any need for in the article. The addition of one colour in the table I do not find relevant for the situation since it's explained above why that contestant was let through to the final right above, and it's never been done before for other contestants who suffered the same fate for a reason. Agwjkl (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The color coding might be fine, but you mixed a bunch of other unrelated reverts in at the same time. Grk1011 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Agwjkl: Well, but you don't own the absolute truth of the universe! If you didn't find something relevant and others do, is that such a big deal? So, basically, that so-famous "format" is just what the FdC previous articles used? In my opinion, having a full, giant paragraph saying what happened in both semi-finals is cluttered, and confusing. One paragraph per semi saying the hosts and guest performers would be much less confusing, with smaller sentences instead of a big one with a bunch of words and the over-use of "while". Can we try to be more accessible? - MarcioRob24 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not act like I am the creator of that formatting, but I enforce it for the sake of continuity, as it has always been done when there are no hugely major changes to the format of the competition, and if there are any, they are stated just as they are currently. We could indeed divide the semi-finals into two paragraphs if we had too much information in one, but what we've got is completely fine. It is true that Wikipedia should certainly be accessible, but I believe that one longer paragraph isn't something that stands in the way, and it isn't really long enough to need to divide it. Agwjkl (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't something enough to be divided YET. Once the guests for semi 2 are added it will be big, imo. And not just that, the division of information seems like a more organized text. - MarcioRob24 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at last year, it's not gonna be much longer than that and that was definitely not too much tezt for a paragraph. I think it's definitely not long enough to be divided, except for the Esse Povo wildcard. All we would do dividing it with this amount of information is adding loads of unnecessary repetitions and making it way longer than it really needs to be, and I don't think want that. It really isn't making anything more accessible, either. Agwjkl (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... So, basically, your way needs to prevail always... I don't really care anymore about this... For now - MarcioRob24 (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry if you feel this way, that you think I am trying to act like my way needs to prevail over you. You added some nice to have information to the aricle which were obviously kept, and took your time to edit it first when nobody had the will or time. It's just that this formatting wasn't it. Agwjkl (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of song titles

@MarcioRob24: I felt opening a discussion here makes more sense than another edit war on this topic. There are a number of naming conventions in place across Wikipedia which provide guidance on how to capitalise titles, which also in this case would cover the song titles although individual articles have not been and, barring the winner, and unlikely to be created. These include WP:MOSCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCMUSIC and WP:MOSTM (the latter of which may not be directly related but the principles are relevant here) and MOS:FOREIGNTITLE (which specifically related to non-English titles). Previously as a WikiProject we have used MusicBrainz to aid us with determining how best to capitalise non-English titles given there can be sparse and/or conflicting details around this area. Their entry on Portuguese titles specifies that only the first letter of the first word in a title should be capitalised, with the exception of proper nouns, which is generally what has been the consensus for Eurovision/FdC song titles for many years. Capitalising titles as you have done in this article verges on stylisation and would run counter to MOSTM, in the same way that an article on an English language song which is marketed or presented in all caps would not be presented in all caps but would follow the guidance in place for English song titles. Just because a song is capitalised a certain way on a track list or through on-screen graphics doesn't mean that Wikipedia should necessarily follow the same method, especially when there is no particular rhyme or reason to the capitalisation (e.g. in the way that you have the song titles presented some words are not capitalised and in one case the entire song title follows sentence case). Please do let me know if there is a reasoning behind the capitalisation that you can see as a native Portuguese speaker that I may not as someone with only a low level understanding of some Portuguese. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: All I have to say is that I found it kinda "disrespectful" to not write the titles how they are presented by their publishers, after all, those should be considered the official tittles. Also, I never understood why English titles can have words capitalized, and then other languages don't... I was trying to put them as they were published because that made more sense, with some words capitalized (all were either nouns or adjectives) and others not (like the prepositions "do" or "de" - "Sonhos de Liberdade). The only exception would be "Enquanto é tempo": "é" is a conjugated verb and "tempo" is a noun, but the title was published just with the first word capitalized. But well, I guess the MoS seems more important than official publications, which is a big shame. Thanks for starting this discussion either way. - MarcioRob24 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see how it's "disrespectful" but I get your point. And yes I could see the reasoning behind the capitalisation of nouns and adjectives, but the very fact that there was an exception kinda proves to me that it's all a bit random and ad hoc, and maybe that not a lot of thought has been put into how these should be capitalised. This is why the MOS guidance is there, not because it's more important necessarily than what the publisher puts out there, but to bring some consistency across all articles within Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]