Jump to content

Template talk:Eurovision Song Contest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove cities and venues

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This entire discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Navigational boxes reform (again), for wider engagement from all members of WikiProject Eurovision and other sister projects. Wes Mouse 13:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we remove the host cities and venues as they are of minor importance to this template and makes it bloated and hard to use. The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation and while this template is useful to navigate between different contests, it is highly unlikely that it will be used to navigate between cities. The inclusion of the host cities and venues also means the template is harder to use as the links that are actually useful have to be hidden behind collapsed boxes. Väsk (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read an old RfC regarding these templates, in which covered the reform of these templates. The likelihood of your proposal being carried out is very unlikely to happen as the information on host city and venues are just as important to the rest of the information, purely because without the venue and host city then the contests themselves would not take place. Wes Mouse 14:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A can of worms, apparently. I skimmed through most of that discussion, but I can't see this proposal going against its possible conclusions (if there were any). More importantly, this proposal would be in line with the spirit of WP:NAV. Again, a navbox should aid navigation, but the outcome is diminished if cram to much peripheral information into it. Sure, the host cities are of some importance to the ESC, but the ESC is usually of more fleeting importance to the individual cities, which is the important thing there. The likelihood that people will use the ESC navbox to navigate between host cities is quite small. Väsk (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is of minor importance to one person, may be of high importance to another. We are to be seen as accommodating everyone, regardless of our own opinion on whether specific content is of minor importance in our own eyes. To make such a claim as the likelihood that people will use the ESC navbox to navigate between host cities as being quite small, is an opinion that one cannot make based on their own matter of opinion. We are to assume that people do use the navbox to navigate between host cities - not the complete opposite. Wes Mouse 15:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing worth remembering is that WikiProject Eurovision prefers to keep all their templates in uniformity (another words all using the same layout style). So this discussion would be better off taking place at WT:ESC for a more wider audience from members of the project for which these templates belong to. If the removal of host city/venue were to be agreed upon, then we'd need to discuss the matter of similar templates...
All of the above use the same layout style as part of the uniformity approach that Project Eurovision follows. Wes Mouse 15:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the cities are of importance to the ESC doesn't matter. The host broadcasters are of more importance to the ESC than the cities, yet they are not included and this template isn't transcluded onto numerous pages about European broadcasters. What matters for navboxes is usability, and the inclusion of the cities etc is arguably a net minus in this case as it requires the actually useful links (the contests and the countries) to be hidden behind collapsed tables. When I first saw this template I didn't immediately understand how to find links to the individual contests, the extra step of clicking once more to reveal these links isn't very intuitive.
I hadn't seen all the templates you list above, but I'd argue they support my case. Very few (if any) are transcluded in city articles and I don't think anyone would argue that Template:Eurovision Young Musicians should be transcluded into articles about various major European cities. They thus fail as navboxes, as they only work if the template is transcluded into most or all articles in the navbox.
Of course there needs to be some uniformity, but the ESC project isn't an island. If you look at templates about similar events, such as the Olympics and the World Cup, their main templates do not list various host cities. (There is however a special template for Olympic host cities, which may be an acceptable compromise.) Väsk (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you were a member of Project Eurovision then you'd have known about all the previous debates about these templates. Like I said previously, I find it highly unlikely that your proposal would become implemented based on what had been discussed at all the previous debates. So this argument is basically running without legs. If you wish to discuss the matter further, then feel free to open a new debate via the project talk page, for a more broader consensus. Wes Mouse 21:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And your argument that "very few (if any) are transcluded in city articles" is also false. You'll find that this navbox is included in every host city article. Which is also in accordance with point 2 of WP:NAVBOX which states that "the subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." As the subject is Eurovision and their host cities, and the fact they are mentioned in every article follows the correct procedure of the English Wikipedia editing guidelines. Wes Mouse 21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment again, you'll find I referred to the templates for the various ancillary Eurovision contests you listed above which are not transcluded in many city articles, meaning the lists of host cities ought to be removed from those navboxes. No-one would seriously suggest that those navboxes should be transcluded into every article about a metropolis that has at one time hosted one of these events. Again, navboxes are for navigation, they are not meant to substitute or duplicate lists.
As for city articles that transclude the main ESC template, several do not mention the ESC at all. For good reasons, however big the contest may be, hosting it is of small lasting impact to cities with hundreds (in some cases thousands) of years of history behind them. As for those mentions I could find, many of them seemed a bit perfunctory.
Questions about different articles or templates belong on their respective talk pages. There is no previous debate about this question on this talk page and the discussion you've linked to doesn't mention it either. So I simply cannot see the consensus you claim is there. Also, you don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to suggest changes of articles that may be within the project scope and my suggestion doesn't extend beyond this template. Väsk (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I strongly urge that you move this entire debate over to Project Eurovision talk page, if you wish for it to receive a more broader input from other project members, seeing as this is a template created by ProjectEurovision for Eurovision-related articles. As you pointed out, you don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to suggest changes of articles. But this isn't an article, it's a template. Wes Mouse 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, then we might as well take the issue over to WikiProject Cities, as this template is apparently about a bunch of cities. It doesn't matter if it isn't an article, templates do not "belong" to projects either. As this template is transcluded into various articles about cities it clearly goes beyond the scope of your project. Also, WikiProjects cannot locally decide that their articles should go against general guidelines, and this template clearly doesn't follow the spirit of WP:NAVBOX. I appreciate the work you've put into these templates, but would suggest that you think a bit more about their usability and their function in the larger encyclopedia. Väsk (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove templates like you did by removing the closure template. You action is basically refactoring other's comments and is against WP:TPNO and WP:TPO. The debate has been moved to the project talk page so that other members are aware of this discussion and can participate if they wish. The fat that you are not wanting this to happen could be seen as you objecting to their rights to take part. If you wish to make further comments and receive replies, then they will be made at the project talk page from herewith. And please try to maintain civility. I found the last sentence of your comment to be an attack on my ability to think. These navoxes have not been created by myself, so I would appreciate if you retracted that remark. WP:OWN is in regards to editor's; not project's. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS refers to participants within Project's, not project's on their own merit. Wes Mouse 14:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your closure of the debate as a comment in itself, if you interpreted this as me removing one of your comments, I'm sorry. I found your sudden closure of the debate perplexing as I hadn't experienced that before on Wikipedia. Also, your closure of the debate is against the documentation on Template:Discussion top which states it "should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators". If you want to involve people from various WikiProjects it is perfectly permissible to post a notice on various talks pages or noticeboards pointing towards the relevant talk page. My final remark was merely a suggestion that you respond to my point of view and was not a slight against you as a person, if you interpreted it as such I am of course sorry.
However, I can see that my suggestions for changing this template weren't taken well and will not push this any further. Väsk (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. The closure wasn't a sudden thing as such. Whenever I've moved a debate to a more appropriate place, then I use the "Template:Discussion top" to show that a debate has been moved, so that new editors are aware, if they so wish to participate. That method also avoids having the debate taking place in multiple places; which may confuse matters further. Ultimately the proposal would bare an impact on the other templates too, which is why it would be more logical to discuss them all together at WT:ESC which is the Project that primarily deals with Eurovision-related material (including templates). There's always one person who would start to discuss each template on their individual talk pages, so merging the discussion to one easier to access talk page (in this case the project talk page) would be the logical and less-perplexing way forward. Wes Mouse 19:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reestablishment of consensus

[edit]

@Wesley Mouse: I don't find any consensus anywhere to include "cities" in Eurovision navboxes, and any such WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that goes against established policies and practices is null and void. That the content once existed and was once merged here is not a proof of an active consensus to preserve it. WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. Now, both Väsk and myself challenge that apparent silence. On the merits, I maintain that its inclusion here violates about every point in WP:NAV:

  • every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page.
  • The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?
  • They should be kept small in size
  • If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL expressly requires that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. and I strongly agree with Väsk that No-one would seriously suggest that those navboxes should be transcluded into every article about a metropolis that has at one time hosted one of these events. Again, navboxes are for navigation, they are not meant to substitute or duplicate lists. I discovered this Template after I spotted it within a dozen navboxes at Belgrade and I claim this is navbox-spam, pure and simple. Didn't check other metropolis' articles, but I hardly believe it has been consistently placed there. No such user (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I even comment further on your points, could you please provide a more suitable title for this section. The term "round 2" comes across as illustrating a point in order to cause disruption. I only participate in discussions with cooperative debate titles. Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said that the navboxes will be transcluded onto every article about a metropolis. And I stressed that point to you. The host city details appearing on a navbox does not mean that the navbox will be added to every city article. And if they are being placed on such articles, then simply remove the navbox from those articles. Removing content from the navbox as a preemptive tactic is disruptive. We are not to "preempt" anything. The contests clearly take place in a host city. Showing that data in a template that is covering the contest is permissible and of encyclopaedic value. But that does not mean the navbox will be used on every city article that has hosted a contest. Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal directly violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (based on principle from WP:NAV that "navboxes are used for navigation"). I also maintain that the cities list is not WP:Germane to the topic of ESC, particularly not the navbox, and is already aptly summarized in History of the Eurovision Song Contest.
By the way, I would appreciate if you stop taking the moral high ground and start assuming good faith. I'm not using "preemptive" tactic, I'm not trying to disrupt anything, and removing inappropriate content from anywhere is part of normal editing process. Wikipedia:Too much detail essay basically signifies my stance. No such user (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that my comments and the fact I have free-will to air an opinion is "moral high ground", then you really have a low perspective on people. One could counter-argue that your view portrays a "moral high ground" and a lack of assuming good faith. As I informed on your talk page, there was already a template at Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest which contained the same list of host venues and host cities. That template was used across all articles on cities, and it was due to that and the fact Wiki ProjectEurovision had navboxes for various other things, that prompted a reform and amalgamation of all the navboxes so that any content that could be housed into one box would make things simpler and reduce the number of navboxes that the project used.
Naturally WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would be seen, as these navboxes are primarily used on Eurovision-related articles; but nobody has ever used the reform debates to go "against established policies and practices". And I find it rather baffling that you think such debates are of such connection. And the view that navigation template generally has the template placed on its page, is rather vague in its own context. "Generally" has a vague definition, as not everything has to be in "general" and nobody said the navbox has to be placed on all articles on a host city. On the contrary, I actually spent 3-hours removing the Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest from all of the city articles following the reformed design - and that is a lot of man-hours. What I didn't expect was a fairly new user to the project at the time to start rolling-out the amalgamated version in its place. Seeing as I was not going to waste more man-hours, I had told the user that the burden was on them to revert their moves. Alas, they clearly didn't and that is why the assumption of navbox-spam has been put across.
Anyhow, rather than a blanket-removal of the details from the navbox and leaving it removed, rather than discussing any proposals to better address the issue has never actually happened. There is the List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest article which naturally needs to appear somewhere on the template, and perhaps having that linked at the top of the navbox (in the |above = parameter) along with other articles that are relevant to the contest but also avoiding "spam" is something that should be discussed. And stop with the Wikilawyering of what "directly violates" this, that, and the other. Such behaviour is just as disruptive and is suppose to be avoided in debates of this nature. Control the conduct if you require a peaceful resolution in this matter. And have we forgotten ignore all rules. Wes Mouse  T@lk 10:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I "blanket-removed" the content that "directly violates" WP:POLICY called WP:BIDIRECTIONAL [1]. That is what WP:BOLD is about. That removal has stood the test of time for eight months, so I could claim it has enjoyed consensus as well. We could discuss how it "better addresses the issue", but I still claim that there is no issue to solve at all, that it is not a "legitimate encyclopedic content" and the only policy-based solution is to remove the offending content altogether. The content has never had an active consensus to exist in the first place – it was declared as "obsolete" at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_22#Template:Venues_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest but instead merged (rather than deleted) on the pretext of "consolidating all ESC navboxes into one" – nobody has ever discussed its contents on its merits.
You misunderstand what IAR is about – it concerns processes which end up in improving the encyclopedia. At least two persons here (myself and Väsk, above), argue with policy-based reason that the disputed content does not improve it, on the contrary. No such user (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the "content offending"? I only see you and Vask being offended by it. Perhaps you do not understand Wikipedia:Gaming the system "an editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda". You have clearly demonstrated that in here by force-feeding policies and POV pushing on what the navbox should and should not be containing. As I said, if you feel the host cities is of concern, rather than blanket removal, that a proposal of a new idea should have been put forward. Merely because we are handling a navbox that is on a plethora of articles. We're to avoid mass-impact, and discuss matters to reach a consensus. You never did such action, nor allow others to discuss any subsequent proposals. And so what if it was done 8 months ago? That does not mean you have the right to "claim it has enjoyed consensus" (and grammatically "has" should read "as"). Such action makes you look like you own everything, and I'm sorry but you don't. There is an article on host cities which clearly needs to be shown somewhere on the navbox, even if it means not listing the host cities per se. I've already come up with one solution, which you have not commented on, or are just refusing to comment on because it doesn't conform with your "blanket removal" option. Discussion other options, not sticking to full removal. Wes Mouse  T@lk 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For about the tenth time now you try to ascribe some kind of sinister motives to my actions, and repeatedly accuse me of bad faith, despite my appeals. I removed the content once, eight months ago, and only once more yesterday [2], in part because your revert caused significant collateral damage that is being fixed by fellow editors – which version on Earth have you reverted to??? And you're accusing me of disruption. Please start addressing my argumentation on the merits, once. Yes, I agree that List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest is the relevant article that should be linked from the navbox, for the start. No such user (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three words to that remark. Kettle, pot, black! Your remarks are also are accusing me of sinister motives, bad faith, and collateral damage. Had it escaped your mentality that what you are saying is coming across as much worse than my own words? Tit for tat, my friend. One should expect to get their fingers burnt if they purposely play with matchsticks and fuel. And now you throw even more bad faith attacked with the remark "because your revert caused significant collateral damage that is being fixed". Sorry, but that is such uncooperative replying if ever I have seen it on here. The template was merged from 10 other templates, into a "super-template". So rather than having 10 templates on articles (which would be navbox-spam) and having an "all-in-one" type (which is less spam) was work in progress. Your action to remove content, rather than proposing a change was the disruption. Just look back and think... if you had proposed a change and along the lines of the one I made below, and people agreed to it. We would not be having this very discussion. So you have wasted more time, to be fair. Use logic in future. I would never dream of making mass-changes to a navbox without seeking consensus from the wider community. It prevents having to eat our own humble pie. Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that there is also Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest venues which is basically doing the same thing as the now deleted and merged Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest. That too will require the main Junior Eurovision template being redesigned to the same format as this, its senior counterpart. Anyone fancy working on that and nominated the JESC venue one for TfD? Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

[edit]

Having the host cities listed in the navbox is clearly causing some concerns with a small selection of users, and this concern needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and in a peaceful manner. The users who have raised an issue have not provided any alternative proposal to house such information on host cities within the navbox template. Therefore I shall put forward an alternative solution.

There is the article List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest in existence which needs to be shown somewhere on the template, just like the other articles on winners, history, OGAE etc. Perhaps the alternative work-around on this is to have Host cities added to the (in the |above = parameter) of the navbox. That way there is no list of cities, the chances of "navbox-spam" across city articles is significantly reduced, and the navbox still contains its original data on host cities, with the link to take the general viewer to the host city article. Wes Mouse  T@lk 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. No such user (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Changes implemented. Cities and stadia were too tangential. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(As an example of how WP:UNDUE applies, see this version of the Cinecitta article) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple changes

[edit]

The template has done under what feels like the proverbial axe lately and hacked to near-death and is making it look more confusing than it did before it was chopped to pieces. The top bar of the template is so crammed with links that it is starting to look like Llanfai­rpwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch (yes that place in Wales which ironically I can pronounce). Also the countries in the unsuccessful part got removed, re-added, removed again, and current back on the template. Now as I can appreciate the reason why the editor removed them, I am somewhat bemused at the same time. Each of the countries linked in that section navigate to their respective sections within the target article, making navigation more pin-point. However, I feel that it may be time that a thorough discussion is going to be required at Talk WikiProject Eurovision and start the entire design process of not just this, but all template under Project Eurovision's scope, and do so from scratch as if we were designing them for the first time. They need to address all of the concerns, whilst also doing it purpose job, and taking into account the complexity of Eurovision. But I propose that until a full decision on the re-design of all templates has been reached, that any major changes should be put on hold, and the templates left in status quo, as it could b a case of making any changes post-discussion, and then any redundant navboxes be speedy-deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each article should only be linked once per navbox. Navboxes are for navigating between different articles, not between different sections of the same articles. But yes, all these Eurovision navboxes are an absolute travesty. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, each link does direct to their own article. It is those articles which are redirected to the unsuccessful countries page, as they are likely to participate in the contest in the near future. More so with Kazakhstan, which the EBU recently published that they are looking into changing the rules so that associate EBU members can participate, which would also open the doors to China, the USA etc. But I fully agree that a complete overhaul and redsign is in dire need - and better still if done from scratch as if we were in 1956 and this contest was about to begin for the first time. That was we would be able to rebuild/restructure the navboxes more professionally. I know you and I spoke about this recently, and I have raised the issue on the project talk page. But I was accused of being "uncivil and attacking", when all I said was the project needs to be reformed as we were clearly not following manual of style on a wide spectrum of issues, including article structuring, navboxes etc. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the links that you restored in this edit all redirect to the same article: List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, which isn't how a navbox should work. Navboxes should point to WP:EXISTING articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for an overhaul, it is much needed. I don't think these collapsible groups help navigation much either. One consideration could be to split this navbox - have one for the competitions, one for the countries/selections, perhaps? You know my feelings on the ones for the individual countries... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We had separate ones in the past, one for competitions, and one for national selections, but they got TfD'd and merged because they were a "fork" and did not do what Navboxes are suppose to do. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was only a suggestion, and I think a split would garner support as preferable to the current format. I think getting rid of the collapsible groups for this would be a positive start, making navigation easier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, if I may, I would like to propose a partnership with you and collaborate together to bring all these navboxes up to a high standard once and for all. I have plenty of space in my sandboxes that we could use, if you fancy working together on this matter. Sod what the project has to say on the matter, both you and I agree that they are in urgent need of repair. I had listed a while ago a long list of issues which the project doesn't seem to follow, and a habit of ad hoc and throw whatever is "pretty" into articles/navboxes etc happens all the time. Wes Mouse  T@lk 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've very quickly knocked THIS up if you have any initial thoughts. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I think THIS is the kind of format we should be working towards for the individual country navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG (excuse my language) but I have just fallen in love with the design for the first one. I looked at it and just bounced off my chair and knocked my cuppa coffee off the table in excitement. I'd even be happy to let that one be changed with immediate effect. As for the country one, I can see where it is heading. But I would like to see how it would look for countries such as the UK. 61 entries on something like that is going to look a mess. And what happens when Eurovision reaches 100 years? My Lord they would be crammed and unreadable. The country ones are more detailed and need better planning and work. Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! It could use a bit of tweaking (finding the balance between blue and white space for example), but thanks!!! If you want to implement it, please do!  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the larger country ones go, I'm working on THIS for the UK. Winners in bold... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to say, based on the Australia design, I did the same for the UK and it looked an eyesore. But splitting into decades would work, but that style would be better used across all of the country versions, including Australia at this present time, simply for consistency and uniformity looks. Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually against arbitrarily splitting by decades, but can't see another option in this case, as your example makes clear. It's not necessary to include decades for cases like Australia though, where there are not enough entries to warrant the split. I do think having the year/artist/song together aids navigation. Any other relevant articles could be added in the "above" section, like I did with the national selection. That wasn't an option with the previous design! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ive just spotted that there is a {{UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest}} navbox too. I think my new design (which is now finished) clears up any redundancy, so only one navbox is needed. --15:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
As for User:Robsinden/sandbox/Template:Eurovision Song Contest though, I would be more than happy to see it implemented ASAP and also the same style on navboxes for other contests within the project scope. That gains my utmost fullest support. Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your positive reaction - I'm pleased you like it!  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I really do love the design for the main contest navboxes so much. Once we've sorted this mess out, fancy helping me tackle the bigger problem at hand and get the whip cracked on project reform? Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm away for a couple of weeks after Friday, but remind me when I'm back! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new template looks great but is missing here and shouldn't Kvalifikacija za Millstreet (1993 preselection) be included? Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd missed one. Thanks @Fort esc:. And yes the pre-qual of the 90s should be included. But with the simplified design should make it easier now where to place it. Wes Mouse  T@lk 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the "above" section is too prominent as these are general topics. Maybe on its own in the "National selections" section? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or as it only relates to the 1993 competition, maybe skip it from this navbox and included at {{Eurovision Song Contest 1993}} instead (which also needs overhauling). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robsinden: Kvalifikacija za Millstreet wasn't a national selection though. It was a pre-qualification round for several Balkan states who wanted to join the contest. A bit like the modern day semifinals. Wes Mouse  T@lk 08:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a play around with {{Eurovision Song Contest 2016}} early hours of this morning to try and tidy things up and bring in-line with the new designs, and oh boy did it look unsightly. No matter what I tried it just wouldn't come together. So I gave up and went to bed hoping tha some sleep would inspire ideas into my little grey cells. No joy though. 6th cuppa coffee might do the trick. Wes Mouse  T@lk 08:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about The Secret History of Eurovision and Host City Insignia? Fort esc (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Host City Insignia would be better off merged into List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest, and would provide the latter article with more scope and depth about hosting. The Secret History of Eurovision is only a documentary about the history of the contest. I don't think documentaries are really what the navbox for the contests is all about. Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate navboxes

[edit]
Unfortunately we cannot create separate templates per your suggestion, as they were nominated and subsequently deleted four years ago (see discussion), as they were being placed on city/venue articles that served no purpose as they were also removed from such articles. Nice try though. Wes Mouse Talk 04:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just take this opportunity to say how much I think that the current template is such a massive improvement on what we had before?
Saying that, I am slightly irked to read back what has been said on this talk page in the last few weeks, and see accusations that no alternative proposals were put forward and accusations that no discussion was allowed on any other proposals.
This is somewhat galling for me given that I put forward an alternative proposal on 15 July 2014 at the WikiProject Eurovision, when the discussion was moved there in order to seek a wider scope of opinion. My contribution did not receive a reply and looks fairly lonely on 'Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 13'.
Further to this, I did bring the issue up again at 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision Song Contest records' on 28 October 2015. Nothing was done, however.
I'm not saying that my proposal was superior to what we have at the moment. Indeed, far from it. Yet, it is a bit demoralising to read that no proposals were put forward despite the fact that I took the time to try to resolve the situation on separate occasions. RedvBlue 23:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

[edit]

Add Entries Norfin (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfin: Ill be more than happy to do this for you, but could you maybe specify in a clearer way you want to change or where you want to insert the link? L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-offs

[edit]

Should Eurovision Asia Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest be added to the template, and if so would it be worth starting a Spin-offs section to include them in? Dunarc (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon in the "eligible" section

[edit]

It seems misleading to me to include Lebanon in the "eligible" section simply because they selected an entry once, when there are plenty of other eligible countries who have never participated. I think Lebanon should be in the "inactive" section. dummelaksen (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former countries or former EBU members?

[edit]

@Sims2aholic8: you moved Belarus to the "Former" section since they are no longer an EBU member, although I actually interpreted this as meaning "former countries" (as in dissolved ones), rather than "former EBU members". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochem van Hees: yes that was the former definition for that grouping, however I felt it required updating. I think keeping Belarus in "inactive" is somewhat misleading now they their only broadcaster is no longer an EBU member, therefore preventing them from participating in the future. For me I think the differentiator is that inactive countries are those who can participate but choose not to, whereas former countries are those that are unable to participate. It's only now that there has been this expulsion that has caused the rethink for me, but it is an unprecedented situation so it's not as if there is precedent. Eager to hear your thoughts on this however if you disagree. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair point, although at least I don't think that Belarus should be grouped together with Serbia & Montenegro and Yugoslavia, since those are gone for a completely different reason. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean yes and no. Yes S&M and Yugoslavia are former countries in the sense they no longer exist, they are also former participants of ESC that are unable to return, just like Belarus now. There are nuances but fundamentally the three countries are all unable to participate for different reasons. Perhaps "former" now is the wrong word to use, given what you said about former countries. Is there a better word we could use if we were to group these countries together? I don't think having Belarus in its own category is right but I also don't think they should be listed with the other inactive countries that are making a choice not to participate. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this very closely, but couldn't Belarus rejoin sometime in the future? They would have a much harder time than other inactive countries because they would first need to have a broadcaster again, but it's not impossible like S&M and Yugoslavia are (naturally as they don't exist anymore). A lot of the sources we see for this are very ESC-centric, as if the penalty is solely about not participating in Eurovision. That is not the case and ESC is a peripheral "punishment". In fact, from what I've seen over the last few years, the broadcaster has a history of being relatively incompetent at choosing a valid entry to begin with. Taking a few steps back, remember that the navbox is not supposed to be explaining anything, just aiding in navigation between articles. I think it should be simplified to group "countries that currently participate" and "countries that have articles but do not currently participate". Maybe "Active" and "Other". Grk1011 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we consider the navbox as being purely for navigation then there isn't really a need for a "Former" group anyways. Those groups are there so that it's easier to find a certain article, and I don't think many people want to specifically know about the countries that no longer exist in Eurovision. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes from the standpoint of navigation I would agree that "Active" and "Other" would most likely work best. I think the current structure of "Inactive" and "Former" is to align with the key used in List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest (which I also amended to change Belarus to "Former"), but I don't think this alignment in the navbox is necessary. There are clearly differences between Belarus and Serbia and Montenegro/Yugoslavia given that the latter two have ceased to exist, and while yes being expelled from the EBU does have much broader and serious impacts on BTRC beyond Eurovision, such as in accessing EBU news and sports broadcasts, I think listing Belarus in a group with the former Balkan countries as those countries that are unable to participate in Eurovision, rather than as a conscious choice on the broadcaster, makes sense, at least to me. Of course this is a completely new situation and so it's unprecedented what we should do here, so reaching a consensus on labels and groups might work best in the long run should something similar happen again. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest&oldid=1230657660"