User talk:Sims2aholic8/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sims2aholic8. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1975
On 4 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eurovision Song Contest 1975, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Swedish broadcaster organising the Eurovision Song Contest 1975 refused to allow the contest to be shown in Chile, as a protest against the country's military dictatorship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1975. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eurovision Song Contest 1975), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Poor English
May I ask if English is your first language? There is absolutely no justification for using "of" in this case. If you were to use "of", e.g. "participants of the future", that is a completely different construction with a different meaning. Moreover, although the "title" parameter of the references reads "Participants of", when you actually look at the source, that is not the wording at all. Deb (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: I don't appreciate the implication that my English is poor. You very well could have checked my userpage to see that, yes, English is my first language (Hiberno-English but that's still English). Maybe next time, approach the situation differently and don't have what could be perceived to be an insult as your first message. Anyway, in this context I do believe "participants of" does work, because it's talking about more than just the individual "participants", i.e. the countries, the artists, the songwriters, the songs, but them collectively as a group. Additionally, the "of" usage here can signify that the participants belong to the contest in a sense, that these entries and artists have become part of the fabric of ESC. Since we can talk about "Eurovision artists" and "Eurovision songs", I believe using "in" here takes away that subtext. For the sake of keeping the peace, I've now changed the wording to "[ESC contest] participants". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker). Also a native English speaker... and while I guess I'm not upset about "in" vs "of", a quick search shows both are fine. Deb, do you have specific evidence that shows one is wrong or is it just your application of one of the many conventions? This feels more like a preference, and if so, would need to be discussed. I haven't seen evidence of "of" being wrong, as that is the grammatical construction used in many of the references. Grk1011 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a preference; it's what's correct, and yes, I have checked. If any of the references actually say "participants of", which I doubt, it's an indication that they were not written by fluent English speakers. Deb (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that this usage is poor English. Maybe next time, approach the situation differently and don't revert other people's edits without good cause. The reasoning behind your statement that "participants of" does work is flawed. It doesn't matter in what role they are participating, they are still participants "in" the contest, not "of" the contest. Would you ever say "I am participating of a contest", or even "I am a participant of a contest"? Of course not. "Participants" is fine with me. After all, that's what the source actually says. Deb (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: As I said in the comment on my edit, obviously when used as a verb, "in" is the only acceptable option. But here it's used a noun, and "in" or "of" I believe are still perfectly valid, even if "in" is the more common usage. See here for one explanation of why "of" would work here. As I said, from a Eurovision Song Contest perspective, there is a lot of love for past participants and songs, and that's why I believe the "of" usage would work here to create that subtext of belonging that a lot of Eurovision fans have. We can agree to disagree on the best word to use, but for you to say that it's incorrect is wrong; uncommon yes, but just as valid when used as a noun in certain contexts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any explanation at that link and I'm certainly not giving them my e-mail address to find out. Please just tell me in what situation you think it should be used. Deb (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you needed to scroll down? This is what they had on their website:
Both 'participant in' and 'participant of' are commonly used phrases in English, but they are used in slightly different contexts. 'Participant in' is more commonly used when referring to someone taking part in an activity, event, or program. On the other hand, 'participant of' is less common and is typically used when emphasizing the belonging or possession of the participant to a group or organization.
- As I said, I think 'participant of' is equally valid because of that subtext of belonging to the contest. But clearly you don't agree so I don't really see much point in rehashing this. Like I said, I changed the wording on Eurovision Song Contest 1983 to steer clear of this whole debate, and I'll work on changing the wording to this on all other articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: I'd suggest you immediately stop making these edits until you've explained why you believe you're correct (more than just telling us, show us, as is required). Sims has provided you with some evidence, which you've dismissed as inconvenient/annoying to access, but you've provided zero evidence of your own. I'm inclined to blanket revert you and report you for being unconstructive and uncooperative with this matter. Continuing to make these now controversial edits pushes this way past good faith on your side. It's best to come to a compromise to save everyone time. If we agree with you, then we'd be partners in fixing your concerns. I'm not sure what this is now, but each of your edits now requires cleanup by someone else even if we go with "in". Grk1011 (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: I provided a compromise at Eurovision Song Contest 1983, which you seem to have either not noticed or completely dismissed. You are now also changing the ref titles, when this is literally the page title of the URLs being cited, without any explanation other than "grammar". Even though I have provided quite a lot of evidence that "participant of" is just as valid gramatically in this context. I have to concur now with Grk1011 that your edits are becoming unconstructive, and you seem to be completely uncooperative with working with us in rectifying any concerns you have. Please work with us and explain your reasoning for your preferred "in" wording here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the page title. It's the page address, which is a completely different thing. The probable reason for the bad grammar that was in the header was that someone cited the source wrongly and used that address as a page title - which it isn't. The evidence you supplied above actually clearly shows that "participant of" belongs in quite a different context - such as the one I mentioned in my first response. "Participant of" is not just "less common", it's extremely uncommon and doesn't work in this context - that's possibly why all the articles on the ESC almost exclusively use "participant in". If consistency is your concern, you should recognise that. Yes, there are a small number of situations where "participant of" may be appropriate - but that is not the case in these articles. Deb (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to stop correcting errors. The tab for that page says "Participants"; only the web address (created by programmers, not language experts), has the word "of" in it. Deb (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: Ok we can agree to disagree on this. As I said, I believe there are additional layers of subtext that could be presented when using the "participant of" wording. However, the real issue here is that you have refused to meet us halfway, you refused to explain your edits other than just saying "grammar", and when evidence was presented to you that we could look at things in a different way, it took you way too long to actually review it and instead you just decided to continue editing and making the changes because of your preconceived notions of what it should be. Instead of working with us to find a compromise, you took a "my way or the highway" approach, which flies in the face of WP:CONDUCT. Just consider this next time, it's a lot easier to approach a situation by actually explaining yourself and working with people rather than taking the "moral high ground" and imposing your edits on people without explanation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's quite untrue. I have met you halfway by agreeing to change the table title to "Participants" and I've helped with this editing. How can you say that looking at your source took me "way too long"? I'm not subject to a timetable imposed by you. I did it as soon as I could, and while doing my own research. I'm sorry that I overlooked the scroll down, but all I saw was a link to click, which I did. As an admin, I have other duties here, which take priority over arguing with you, and I also have a life outside Wikipedia. You were the one who reverted my initial change without discussion, and that's bad practice in anyone's book. I appreciate the work you've done to try to fix the problem, but continuing to accuse me of being uncooperative is completely unfair. Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: Ok we can agree to disagree on this. As I said, I believe there are additional layers of subtext that could be presented when using the "participant of" wording. However, the real issue here is that you have refused to meet us halfway, you refused to explain your edits other than just saying "grammar", and when evidence was presented to you that we could look at things in a different way, it took you way too long to actually review it and instead you just decided to continue editing and making the changes because of your preconceived notions of what it should be. Instead of working with us to find a compromise, you took a "my way or the highway" approach, which flies in the face of WP:CONDUCT. Just consider this next time, it's a lot easier to approach a situation by actually explaining yourself and working with people rather than taking the "moral high ground" and imposing your edits on people without explanation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to stop correcting errors. The tab for that page says "Participants"; only the web address (created by programmers, not language experts), has the word "of" in it. Deb (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the page title. It's the page address, which is a completely different thing. The probable reason for the bad grammar that was in the header was that someone cited the source wrongly and used that address as a page title - which it isn't. The evidence you supplied above actually clearly shows that "participant of" belongs in quite a different context - such as the one I mentioned in my first response. "Participant of" is not just "less common", it's extremely uncommon and doesn't work in this context - that's possibly why all the articles on the ESC almost exclusively use "participant in". If consistency is your concern, you should recognise that. Yes, there are a small number of situations where "participant of" may be appropriate - but that is not the case in these articles. Deb (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any explanation at that link and I'm certainly not giving them my e-mail address to find out. Please just tell me in what situation you think it should be used. Deb (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Deb: As I said in the comment on my edit, obviously when used as a verb, "in" is the only acceptable option. But here it's used a noun, and "in" or "of" I believe are still perfectly valid, even if "in" is the more common usage. See here for one explanation of why "of" would work here. As I said, from a Eurovision Song Contest perspective, there is a lot of love for past participants and songs, and that's why I believe the "of" usage would work here to create that subtext of belonging that a lot of Eurovision fans have. We can agree to disagree on the best word to use, but for you to say that it's incorrect is wrong; uncommon yes, but just as valid when used as a noun in certain contexts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker). Also a native English speaker... and while I guess I'm not upset about "in" vs "of", a quick search shows both are fine. Deb, do you have specific evidence that shows one is wrong or is it just your application of one of the many conventions? This feels more like a preference, and if so, would need to be discussed. I haven't seen evidence of "of" being wrong, as that is the grammatical construction used in many of the references. Grk1011 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive
| January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1985
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 1985 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1985
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1985 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1985 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1985/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 1985
The article Eurovision Song Contest 1985 you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1985 for comments about the article, and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1985/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The article OGAE Second Chance Contest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fan contest which has very limited notability outside of the Eurovision Song Contest fandom; fails WP:GNG and WP:N(E)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1984
On 1 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eurovision Song Contest 1984, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that booing heard after the United Kingdom's entry at the Eurovision Song Contest 1984 was reportedly either a response to past football hooliganism, claims of lip syncing, or alleged plagiarism of the Supremes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1984. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eurovision Song Contest 1984), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 12:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Request for comment on future of WikiProject Eurovision
A request for comment regarding the future of WikiProject Eurovision is currently ongoing. A proposal by Sims2aholic8 has been opened for comment, and a discussion is now taking place to determine consensus on whether WikiProject Eurovision should be rescoped and renamed WikiProject Song Contests. You are invited to read the proposed changes to the WikiProject at the discussion page and to participate by voting on the proposed changes and adding any comments or further proposals. This discussion will remain open until 31 January 2025, at which point, if consensus has been reached, further discussions will take place on the exact changes agreed.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MediaWiki message delivery why do you have to be so petty regarding the = sign for countries who finish with same number of points and therefore all finish in same place ?
- makes it easier for people to see which countries finished N= place if they sort by another column Bielzebub1981 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
DYK for Eurovision Song Contest 1985
On 25 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eurovision Song Contest 1985, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a wardrobe malfunction at the Eurovision Song Contest 1985 was staged because the host wanted the audience "to wake up a little"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1985. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eurovision Song Contest 1985), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the January 2025 GAN backlog drive
|
The Working Man's Barnstar |
| Your noteworthy contribution (8 points total) helped reduce the backlog by 185 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurovision Song Contest 1962, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Revert winners article
Hi Sims2aholic8, regarding the revert you just did to me.
Maybe, we may have different concepts of what "country year" articles are, but I see them as articles about a country's participation in a specific year, not just about the national final/selection process. The links to "county in year" that I have added to the prose of the winners page make perfect sense to know which entry we are talking about.
If you want to leave the links to the contest articles in the multiple wins table, it is ok for me, although I think is better to link them to the entry itself. But the rest of the links that I added to the prose do not deserve a revert because they make the article easier to read and give it more context. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: I do understand where you're coming from. On the prose front, yes I agree there is more of a case for linking to the country year articles, so I'm happy to retain those changes. It's just important to note that even though there are occasions where "country in year" is linked separately, depending on the context it may be best to link them separately, rather than linking the whole phrase to the country year article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I try to be careful with that, and I am aware that depending on the context it could be best to link them separately, but in most cases when we talk about a "country in year" we are talking about that specific entry, and adding the link to the contest is secondary (and it only adds noise). Ferclopedio (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello! And thank you for the correction! I understand now that the information I added does not belong to the lead section (per MOS:LEAD). However, I do not agree that this information isn't relevant to the article about Finland's participation in Eurovision as such.
We are creating a nonfictional work here, not just a database. Wikipedia aims to summarize the world's general knowledge in an informative and readable way. Some readers just want to look something up quickly. Others want to learn something while reading. If we fail to consider this, we should not call Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Therefore I hope you agree that I add this information again somewhere in the margins of this topic. --Rießler (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion in WikiProject Song Contests
|
→ Discussion ←
There is currently a discussion regarding articles that should remain or be removed from coverage in WikiProject Song Contests.
To join the discussion, please click above. You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Email request: VISF
Dear Sims2aholi8,
could you sent me a simple email using the "email this user" function on my user page? I might have found something useful for your and Ferclopedio's draft on VISF. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Participants
Sims2aholic8, could I, please, change the title of the section "Participating countries" in the contest articles into "Participants" as we are talking there also about broadcasters, songs, artists, etc.. It would make more sense. Ferclopedio (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: Yes I don't see an issue with renaming this section, and I agree that it would probably make more sense. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have already changed that in ESC and JESC. It's something that has been bothering me for a while and since I just learned how to make the change automatically, I couldn't resist. The NOTBROKEN fix you made me yesterday prompted me to learn how to automatically change the old RTP links, which were all wrong. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: That's awesome! I really need to look into how to make bot changes! Right now I only have a Linux-based machine, so I think what automation I can do is a bit limited. And yes, totally agree with the RTP changes as well. I'm sure there are other old broadcaster names where it would make sense to use the redirects rather than linking directly for that very reason. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I ran the automation in PAWN, the online Web Shell they have here following the instructions, and using the replace script that is very easy to use.
- As I am on fire, I will check those broadcaster links, like NTS. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sims2aholic8, I fixed the links for the Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion, but it raised me a question. The host of the 1984 contest shouldn't be instead "Radio Télévision Luxembourg (RTL) on behalf of the Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion (CLT)" ? Ferclopedio (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: Great, thanks for doing that! That was something that had been bugging me lately too, so glad the links have been fixed now.
- I don't really know the whole history of RTL vs. CLT, particularly in the 80s, and whether "Radio Télévision Luxembourg (RTL)" was a subsidiary of CLT, or whether this was just branding. It is the only contest on the official Eurovision website where the modern RTL branding is used, rather than listing the host broadcaster as CLT, even though CLT is listed as the participating broadcaster on all Luxembourgish entries right through to 1993. Previous instances where we've used the "on behalf of" wording have been backed-up by reliable sources, and unless there's something that I missed, or didn't search for properly, during my GA improvements, I'm not sure there exists such sources. Until there is, I would prefer that the current wording remains. I know this creates a bit of a paradox with RTL being the host broadcaster and CLT being the participating broadcaster for Luxembourg, but that is the situation as currently presented to us in the sources, and until proven otherwise I'm not sure we can change this without violating OR. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- After opening the can of Switzerland and Belgium, I don't know if I want to open the can of Luxembourg :)
- OK, we'll leave it like that for now, but it's something to keep in mind and that we'll have to look at at at some point. What is certain is that the 1984 contest was branded as "by RTL" - just look at the logo and watch the broadcast itself - and that the RTL Group was the Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion between 1954 and 2000.
- What I would not call the eurovision.tv website a reliable source for anything related to the history of broadcasters participation, since it has a lot of errors, such as naming RTVE and ERR for Spain and Estonia for all years even in years before their creation, using the current RTP logo for all Portuguese years, Germany is also a mess, etc. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- That is a fair point re. the official site. But yeah probably best to leave as it is for now, especially given all the branding is RTL-central, but yes we can revisit this at some point. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that what we called Radio-Télévision Belge (RTB) was really Radiodiffusion-télévision belge (RTB), I am going to change it everywhere, just so you know. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there was no need to change all these valid links to ones now featuring a redirect, especially if the name after pipe featured the name at the time. -- AxG / ✉ 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @AxG: Please see MOS:NOTBROKEN; it is sometimes useful to link to a redirect directly, rather than trying to pipe to the "correct" article. As an example, if an editor decided to split out the RTBF article into separate articles covering INR, RTB and RTBF, as has been done on the French Wiki, it makes our job easier as we won't have to then change the links. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there was no need to change all these valid links to ones now featuring a redirect, especially if the name after pipe featured the name at the time. -- AxG / ✉ 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: That's awesome! I really need to look into how to make bot changes! Right now I only have a Linux-based machine, so I think what automation I can do is a bit limited. And yes, totally agree with the RTP changes as well. I'm sure there are other old broadcaster names where it would make sense to use the redirects rather than linking directly for that very reason. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have already changed that in ESC and JESC. It's something that has been bothering me for a while and since I just learned how to make the change automatically, I couldn't resist. The NOTBROKEN fix you made me yesterday prompted me to learn how to automatically change the old RTP links, which were all wrong. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: Just to flag that there are a lot of redirected song articles that are meant to link directly to the "Participating countries" section, which will now need to be changed to the new section title (e.g. Retour). Are you able to achieve this through the bot? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so, when I have some time I'll look at it. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sims2aholic8, I ran the bot on the entries (1956–2003) article, and it changed the redirect in 221 pages; I ran on the entries (2004–present) article, but it didn't find any redirect there; and I ran on the "Category:Eurovision songs" and its sub-categories, and it changed another 13 redirects there. You can check the changes in my "contributions". If you can think of any other place where redicects might be linked, please tell me, and I'll hit it with the bot. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- One Question. The first sentence of the contest articles "The ESC 1980 was the 25th edition of the annual ESC." Half of the articles have "annual" and the other half do not. I can remove the "annual" from every article or add it to all. What I do? Ferclopedio (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: I'd say remove the "annual". I think it's a little redundant, and the majority (if not all) of the articles I brought up to GA have this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sims2aholic8, regarding the links to the languages in the contests articles. According to MOS:OL languages generally should not be linked. Right now, nor English nor French are linked. Should we remove the link at least for the major languages?, (those with more than 100M speakers): Spanish, German, Russian, Portuguese. And I would add Italian, for its weight within Europe. I would keep the links in the specific "languages" article. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: This is something I had been thinking about myself, but it wasn't a "can of worms" I wanted to necessarily touch! I would support removing links from major languages, which would include the ones you had listed. On the other hand, I could see a case for retaining the links within the tables only (which is where they mostly exist in our articles anyway), but removing links from prose. Perhaps this is something that needs a more wider discussion at a WikiProject level, as well as to determine if there are any other languages we should place in the "major" bucket? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the languages issue indeed causes a lot of uproar, that's why I asked before touching anything. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm not saying that we shouldn't, but I would just like to have a bit of a discussion with more editors to get some consensus before we change anything. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I got your point. I don't know if I want to get into a war now with such a controversial topic, I can live with the links as they are now, we'd better focus our efforts on other things. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think we may as well just bite the bullet and start the discussion now. It's not going to go away, and Wikipedia policy is on our side, so if people are mad at it then that's on them. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Related to languages, there's one thing that really bothers me: the different criteria used for the broadcaster names. I don't get the point of using Televisión Española, France Télévisions, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, but for Latvijas Televīzija, and Hrvatska radiotelevizija, for example, people translate them to Latvian Television and Croatian Radiotelevision systematically and we have the two versions of the name all over the place. The broadcasters names are trade marks and brands registered, and unless they had registered their name in English and use that English name generally, Wikipedia's policies about common-names and English-names should not apply here. And additionally they use the native name within the EBU. The fact that the broadcaster used the English translation on the prose in its English website doesn't make it an official name, and that's been the excuse a couple of people used to get the article's title changed to English. The case of Latvijas Televīzija is a bleeding one, since even the company's official logo is its name in Latvian. I'd get into a war over this. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, Grk1011 has open me a discussion about broadcasters names in my talk page. Feel free to give your opinion there :). Ferclopedio (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Related to languages, there's one thing that really bothers me: the different criteria used for the broadcaster names. I don't get the point of using Televisión Española, France Télévisions, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, but for Latvijas Televīzija, and Hrvatska radiotelevizija, for example, people translate them to Latvian Television and Croatian Radiotelevision systematically and we have the two versions of the name all over the place. The broadcasters names are trade marks and brands registered, and unless they had registered their name in English and use that English name generally, Wikipedia's policies about common-names and English-names should not apply here. And additionally they use the native name within the EBU. The fact that the broadcaster used the English translation on the prose in its English website doesn't make it an official name, and that's been the excuse a couple of people used to get the article's title changed to English. The case of Latvijas Televīzija is a bleeding one, since even the company's official logo is its name in Latvian. I'd get into a war over this. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think we may as well just bite the bullet and start the discussion now. It's not going to go away, and Wikipedia policy is on our side, so if people are mad at it then that's on them. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, the issue of the language links has caused much less uproar than we thought. I've got things ready to remove links to 44 languages with the bot whenever we want. How long do we wait? Ferclopedio (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah it surprised me actually! I'm going to put in a follow-up message to the talk page chat now, and then I'd say we can leave it 48 hours. Can you list the 44 languages here, just so I can sense-check if there are any I feel are missing? :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Belarusian Bosnian Bulgarian Catalan Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French Georgian German Greek Hebrew Hungarian Icelandic Irish Italian Japanese Latvian Lithuanian Luxembourgish Macedonian Maltese Montenegrin Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovene Spanish Swahili Swedish Turkish Ukrainian Ferclopedio (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- ...music is the language that we all know how to speaaaaaaakkkk!!!! XD Ferclopedio (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- This list looks good to me! :) I would potentially also include Tahitian, as it has official status in French Polynesia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- French Polynesia is a COM of France, i.e., a first-order administrative division of France as integral parts of it. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- +Kazakh and Welsh per JESC Ferclopedio (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Belarusian Bosnian Bulgarian Catalan Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French Georgian German Greek Hebrew Hungarian Icelandic Irish Italian Japanese Latvian Lithuanian Luxembourgish Macedonian Maltese Montenegrin Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovene Spanish Swahili Swedish Turkish Ukrainian Ferclopedio (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah it surprised me actually! I'm going to put in a follow-up message to the talk page chat now, and then I'd say we can leave it 48 hours. Can you list the 44 languages here, just so I can sense-check if there are any I feel are missing? :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I got your point. I don't know if I want to get into a war now with such a controversial topic, I can live with the links as they are now, we'd better focus our efforts on other things. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm not saying that we shouldn't, but I would just like to have a bit of a discussion with more editors to get some consensus before we change anything. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- OK, the languages issue indeed causes a lot of uproar, that's why I asked before touching anything. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: This is something I had been thinking about myself, but it wasn't a "can of worms" I wanted to necessarily touch! I would support removing links from major languages, which would include the ones you had listed. On the other hand, I could see a case for retaining the links within the tables only (which is where they mostly exist in our articles anyway), but removing links from prose. Perhaps this is something that needs a more wider discussion at a WikiProject level, as well as to determine if there are any other languages we should place in the "major" bucket? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, there's another issue that I think should be addressed at some point, but we have it in almost every article and it's so impactful that I don't know if it can be addressed easily. It is the order of the columns in the tables. I mean, in almost every table the order of the columns is artist-song when (in my opinion) it should be song-artist as we are talking about song contests. I've been investigating whether the swap could be done automatically in some way with the bot, but I haven't found anything. The only semi-automatic thing I've found is that the visual editor allows you to move columns with one click. This doesn't prevent you from having to edit the tables one by one, but at least the swap is just a click away.
- And in a side note, I don't see why in the participants tables in the contest articles, the language is before the songwriters as it had more importance than them, in this case I also think they should be swapped and leave the order like: country-broadcaster-song-artist-songwriter-language-conductor.
- Any thoughts on this? Ferclopedio (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ferclopedio: This is something I had also been ruminating on, and I came to a very similar conclusion to yourself, that song should most likely be listed before artist. Glad to hear that we can easily shift columns through the visual editor (even if it does mean going into each article and manually doing it).
- I hadn't thought about the position of the language column before, but you're right that it probably should also be shifted to be after the songwriters. So overall I would agree with you that the preferred order for the "songs" section of the tables should be "song-artist-songwriter-language", preceded by country info (incl. broadcaster) and then the conductor from '56 to '98 after it. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, I seriously can't believe we have to argue that in a song contest, the entries are songs. I'm amazed. Ferclopedio (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is what it is, people dislike change! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, you are reverting thing that we didn't touch, and you has reverted the Languages links removal in the list of... entries pages Ferclopedio (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I was trying my best to avoid reverting other things but I guess a few things slipped through! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I know you are doing your best. All this discussion has no sense. Ferclopedio (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's all articles reverted. I'm going to leave it a couple of days, and maybe calmer heads will be more receptive to the idea. No point in arguing with IPs that aren't here to actually contribute anyway. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sims2aholic8, I hope you don't feel guilty about what we did. We didn't act in bad faith or covertly. In some ways, we'd already publicly discussed the song-artist order when we did the works in the infobox, and no one complained, and the infoboxes have been there for weeks. We also keep that order in mind throughout the prose. The tables are the only place in the entire project that that order is missing. Ferclopedio (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims, @Ferclopedio; People don't like change. People don't like feeling like they have no control. Sometimes folks just grasp on to familiarity in a time of otherwise chaos. I think things could have been done differently, but it would be more like crossing the Ts and dotting the Is with not much of a change in outcome. The reality is that many editors don't care to participate in conversations and are only fired up when they stumble across something that changed that they didn't like. The only way this would have played out differently is if you could point back to the initial conversation taking place in a 'public' forum, but even then they'd say there was not enough engagement. I'm just sorry that it wasted so much of both of your time! What I typically would do to avoid this is start making what you hope to be a mass change on the most popular articles (the ones people notice), then give it some time to be noticed, days, weeks, before doing the less visible articles. That can prompt additional participation in discussions. Grk1011 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Grk1011. We were very careful when removing the languages links because we thought it would be a controversial topic with a lot of impact, and nobody cared. And this, which (at least I) thought was simply moving a column to align the tables with the prose of the entire project, and with other changes that we have made after a public discussion, that have been implemented for some time now, and to which no one has objected, blows up WWIII. What's become clear to me is that people only care about the tables, the rest of the article could be a mess, but they are crazy about the tables and the colors. They only care about the visual aspects without worrying about the substance of the subjects. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is this condescending claptrap, it's giving me WP:OWN vibes. You're not the custodian of the tables. Those tables are set as they are through years of convention and consensus. Coming up with a plot behind closed doos to "own the IP editors who don't contribute" doesn't wash with me. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Doktorbuk: No I'm not the custodian of these tables, but neither are you. We tried something, people didn't like it, therefore we reverted the edits. What else do you want from me? Do you want me to perform a seppuku for you because through collaboration with another user we identified something we wanted to change and you didn't like it? You might think it's condescending but that's on you, and I'm done arguing about this, with you or with IPs whose only contribution to Wikipedia was to complain about me or to say I should get a job. You won, congratulations, now stop stalking my talk page and leave me the fuck alone! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is this condescending claptrap, it's giving me WP:OWN vibes. You're not the custodian of the tables. Those tables are set as they are through years of convention and consensus. Coming up with a plot behind closed doos to "own the IP editors who don't contribute" doesn't wash with me. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Grk1011. We were very careful when removing the languages links because we thought it would be a controversial topic with a lot of impact, and nobody cared. And this, which (at least I) thought was simply moving a column to align the tables with the prose of the entire project, and with other changes that we have made after a public discussion, that have been implemented for some time now, and to which no one has objected, blows up WWIII. What's become clear to me is that people only care about the tables, the rest of the article could be a mess, but they are crazy about the tables and the colors. They only care about the visual aspects without worrying about the substance of the subjects. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims, @Ferclopedio; People don't like change. People don't like feeling like they have no control. Sometimes folks just grasp on to familiarity in a time of otherwise chaos. I think things could have been done differently, but it would be more like crossing the Ts and dotting the Is with not much of a change in outcome. The reality is that many editors don't care to participate in conversations and are only fired up when they stumble across something that changed that they didn't like. The only way this would have played out differently is if you could point back to the initial conversation taking place in a 'public' forum, but even then they'd say there was not enough engagement. I'm just sorry that it wasted so much of both of your time! What I typically would do to avoid this is start making what you hope to be a mass change on the most popular articles (the ones people notice), then give it some time to be noticed, days, weeks, before doing the less visible articles. That can prompt additional participation in discussions. Grk1011 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sims2aholic8, I hope you don't feel guilty about what we did. We didn't act in bad faith or covertly. In some ways, we'd already publicly discussed the song-artist order when we did the works in the infobox, and no one complained, and the infoboxes have been there for weeks. We also keep that order in mind throughout the prose. The tables are the only place in the entire project that that order is missing. Ferclopedio (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's all articles reverted. I'm going to leave it a couple of days, and maybe calmer heads will be more receptive to the idea. No point in arguing with IPs that aren't here to actually contribute anyway. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I know you are doing your best. All this discussion has no sense. Ferclopedio (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I was trying my best to avoid reverting other things but I guess a few things slipped through! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, you are reverting thing that we didn't touch, and you has reverted the Languages links removal in the list of... entries pages Ferclopedio (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is what it is, people dislike change! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, I seriously can't believe we have to argue that in a song contest, the entries are songs. I'm amazed. Ferclopedio (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Votes vs points
Hi @Sims2aholic8,
I noticed that you changed the word "points" to "votes" in a considerable number of Eurovision articles (both international contests as well as the country per year pages, especially for early years), e.g. Germany 1957. Could you explain to me as a non-native speaker why "points" is wrong and "votes" is right in this context? I personally associate the word "vote" with electoral vote, and with a voter being able only to cast one vote for one candidate/party. Therefore, a sentence like "Each juror distributed ten votes among his favourite songs" (Germany 57) looks bizarre in my opinion. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey User:EurovisionLibrarian,
- So for me it comes down to a couple of different factors, which I'll try my best to explain. The main differentiator I believe is in how the scores of each country are determined; in the case of the main voting system between 1957 and 1974, where you had ten jury members on a jury, the word "vote" works better because each person gives their one votes to one of the competing songs. This means that the maximum a country could get from another country is 10 votes, because there are 10 jury members. However since 1975, the collective opinion of the jury is used to decide the scores awarded; each person individually does not get to determine the points, but instead they vote on the songs and then their votes are combined to provide the points.
- I think another important factor which determines whether "votes" or "points" are being awarded is sequentiality; that is to say the number of points awarded increases depending on the popularity of the song. An important distinction as well is whether multiple songs can get the same score from the same juror or collective jury; if yes, as is the case for Eurovision 1971 to 1973 where each of the jurors could score an entry between one and five, the word "votes" is more apt here. This is why I believe even when we have one person deciding the scores, as you get regularly in NFs or in Kvalifikacija za Millstreet, it is still referred to as "points" when it is e.g. a Eurovision 12-point system, because of its sequential nature. Going back to 1971-1973, in these contests you would get varying levels of scores from each country, as some countries awarded a higher score on average than others, whereas for me a points system is more universally applied, and each country is only able to provide a set number of points (in the case of Eurovision 1975 onwards 1-8, 10, 12). This is also why I believe "points" is the more apt noun to apply to Eurovision scoring between 1962 and 1966, as it ticks the boxes for a collective result for a larger jury, the sequentiality of scores being awarded, and the uniqueness of the scores being awarded. In every other case I believe "votes" is the more apt descriptor.
- Taking these points and applying them to the Germany 1957, there isn't the sequentiality of a Eurovision points-based system in place, and there also isn't a universal way of scoring the entries. I think "votes" works better here as well because of the finite number that can be applied to the entries; e.g. one juror could give all ten votes available to one song, or could split them evenly across the four songs. If all jurors had to rank the songs sequentially, by giving 4, 3, 2 and 1 to the songs, with 4 being the highest and 1 being the lowest, that would be points; but even though the scores in that example add up to 10, in a different example which seems to be more likely in this scenario, you could have had one juror give those exact same scores to the songs, but another juror could have given 8 to one song and 1 to two other songs (also adding up to 10) and nothing to the remaining song, and then a different juror could have given 6 and 4 to two of the songs (again, 10 in total) and nothing to the other two, and there are multiple other combinations available. That's why I don't think "points" makes sense here.
- I hope I'm making sense, please ask as many questions as you'd like to understand what I'm trying to say better if necessary! This is just how I see it as well, but there could be other opinions out there, even among native English speakers. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your explanation! The picture becomes clearer now. So votes can be seen as similar "marks" and on an individual juror's basis, like the scores given by individual jurors in some sports such as figure skating. And "points" applies rather to a fix set of points which each juror has to give in a determined order, with the Eurovision 12 point system being the most famous example, and a rather collective jury result.
- One last question that stays in my mind is what term should be used when we don't know enough about the scoring system, which is the case for some national finals. In fact, for Germany 1957, we know that each juror gave 10 "points" but we don't know whether he/she could distribute these points freely among the entries (like giving all ten points to one single entry) or whether he had to give 4 points to his favourite, then 3 to his second favourite, 2 and 1 = a fixed set of points. In a results table, one could name the corresponding column "score", which is a more general term in my eyes. But in prose, would you speak of votes?
- (PS: Hope my answer and my name will show correctly, I'm using the mobile edit very rarely) EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @EurovisionLibrarian: Not to worry, your reply came through just fine! I had been considering that point as well; I'd say "Total" might be a more useful "generic" term to use within the column headers when it isn't totally clear what the voting system was. Otherwise I'd say use your best judgement whether it should be "votes" or "points" when referring to it in prose. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- (Sorry for this intrusion but,) Sims2aholic8 you just explained to EurovisionLibrarian the difference between a direct voting system and a positional voting system. What you said isn't just a point of view, it's voting systems theory :).
- In a direct voting system, a voter (in our case a juror, or even the full jury) has X votes to distribute freely at will.
- In a positional voting system, a voter (juror o full jury) has to rank the candidates in order of preference, and that ranking is transformed into points: 12 for the first place, 10 for the second place, etc.
- Our televoting is a mixed system, as each voter (at home) can vote up to X times (cast X votes), all the votes are counted to form a ranking (per country), and then that ranking is transformed into points. Ferclopedio (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the voting system used in Germany 1957, the total number of votes in the table are 80. If each juror had 10 votes, then there were 8 jurors. If they had used the positional voting system of 4, 3, 2, 1 points and ever juror had put the same song as its top preference, that song would have 8*4 = 32 points. And 32 points would be the maximum number of points a song would receive. And in the table, the winner has 36 votes, so they didn't use that positional voting system. I've made my calculations, and the results are compatible with a 5, 3, 2 points positional voting system. I know that this is totally OR, and we can not use it, but it was only to have a clue. :)
- I said voting system, not scoring system, because in ESC juries and public vote for their favorites (directly or by rank), so it is a voting system. Voting systems are not always one person = one vote; there are real electoral voting systems where you can vote for more than one candidate (for example, in the Senate elections in my country you can choose up to 3 candidates).
- This is different from the scoring system used in figure skating where each juror scores each participant with a score between 0 and 10. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot to both of you for your answers! EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I just realized that in ESC 1956 they used a rating (scoring) system instead of casting votes or make a rank. The rules say: "Each member of the jury rates ... each of the songs presented from 1 to 10". They use the French verb "cote" = "rate". And the rules also say that that rate is in points. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this point! I've now made a few tweaks to the 1956 article to make it "system agnostic", i.e. avoiding as much as possible stating one way or the other whether it's "votes" or "points". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think we had the same idea at the same time! Apologies if I reverted some of your edits there; also I think using "vote" as a verb in certain contexts is still suitable here, even if it's potentially not votes being given out. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Sims2aholic8, I'm reviewing the "voting" article, and I think we have the same problem in 1971–1973. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I just realized that in ESC 1956 they used a rating (scoring) system instead of casting votes or make a rank. The rules say: "Each member of the jury rates ... each of the songs presented from 1 to 10". They use the French verb "cote" = "rate". And the rules also say that that rate is in points. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive
| May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)