Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 11 May 2013

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eurovision Song Contest 2013 at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Eurovision High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why does this article refer to the Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia? Shouldn't this country be referred to as the F.Y.R. Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), as that is what the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) call it in the contest to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia? A1: Previously the practice on Eurovision Song Contest articles was to universally refer to the Republic of Macedonia as the F.Y.R. Macedonia, as this was the name the EBU used. However, this practice was overridden by wider community consensus established at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Macedonia). The current guideline establishes Macedonia as the general term for the county throughout Misplaced Pages, even if the article is about an international organisation which uses a different naming practice e.g. the Eurovision Song Contest. In Eurovision Song Contest articles the inclusion of the flag for the Republic of Macedonia and the context of Macedonia being listed with other countries makes the risk of confusion low. However, the term F.Y.R. Macedonia, as it is used in the contest, may still be reported once in individual Eurovision Song Contest articles as necessary. See also: Macedonia naming dispute

As for my edit with paragraphs & it's cancellation & other arrangements comments

• I think the article looks a total mess visually. I don't think paragraph seperation, at least at the opening info at the article's top, is exagurated. Furthermore, I think it's presicely more readable as it give different types of info with spaces between them, that are detalied in different chapters later on - on the article.
• The article starts with the definition of the subject - "what is the ESC 2013?" that should be seperated-spaced from the rest info at the top for the reader's convenience + more asthetic to the eye.
• I also arranged some of the main-top info & made a clear definition of the Eurovision with it's Network & EBU so the readers will know the general contest's frame as well as links to those 2 for further reading on them. I hope at least this will stay & will be adopted to other ESC contests on the articles of the English Misplaced Pages.
• The final competition is the most important thing - semi-finals are preliminary screening. The final info should always come first - as the "final"-bottom-line subject literally of the article. Chronological order should be the opposite on Encyclopedia writting, as to start from the main event & than detail on the preliminary screening & than add details about National-finals in the different countries - that chronology wise - were the first to be held.

So here I shared my thoughts & opinions. I'm one of the main writters of ESC articles on the Hebrew Misplaced Pages & the editor that works the most there for months now - on "2013 ESC". I thought it's time that I edit & share some thoughts & things here. Thanks for the attention of anyone who reads & take into consideration. :-) אומנות (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to the lead until until a consensus exists for them, as the format has been established by precedent and consensus over time, meaning further changes can be made, but it should be with clear agreement, especially with the number of articles effected. The content of the lead is ultimately subject to the WP:LEAD guideline. For articles of this nature, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest exists as a template - the lead there is slightly different and is what the current lead will evolve into once the contest is over.

I have to ask if one sentence per paragraph is not excessive, what is? The amount of paragraphs a piece of work should have is subjective, but I think the overwhelming of readers on the English Misplaced Pages would agree with me that five paragraphs for six lines of text is not appropriate, and that one paragraph for six lines of text (two at maximum) is fine. WP:LEADLENGTH states that very long articles can have up to four paragraphs, five is almost never appropriate, and for an article of this length one is sufficient.

It is not current practice on the English Misplaced Pages to separate the two functions of the lead, these being introducing the topic and summarizing the article, and in any case double paragraph spacing goes against the WP:MOS. This is unlikely to changes, and I would probably oppose it if it was proposed.

I'm open minded about the idea of mentioning the Eurovision network and the EBU in the opening sentence, although we would need to assess if these are important enough for such a position. On other changes here, I have to point out though that the statement "58th annual international songs contest of the Eurovision network" is factually wrong as ESC is not the only song contest in the Eurovision network, so ESC 2013 is not the 58th.

As for the idea of putting the final first, it was proposed by an unregistered user once before, and I'm opposed to it. The vast majority of articles are sectioned in chronological order as the article is supposed to be readable from end to end and as later events tend to be dependent on earlier ones, you completely destroy the flow if all the events are jumbled up. Furthermore, the claim that the final is more important is an opinion - others have plenty of reasons to disagree; for instance one could argue since the final is dependent on the result of the semi-final, they are all of equal importance. Ultimately, there is a table of contents for a reason and if people want to go direct to a certain part of the article they are at liberty to do so.

As for the relevance of this issue to lead - the lead by its nature is supposed to document the most important aspects. If Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest is followed then the winner will eventually occupy the second sentence of the lead, to then be followed by the dates which are probably better read in chronological order, although the order within a sentence is trivial.

Finally, I will make a few other points:

• The current long-standing consensus is not to include details of national selections within these articles - they are instead featured in the entry articles e.g. Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013.
• Opening the article with "Eurovision Song Contest for the year 2013" doesn't make sense - while literally "Eurovision Song Contest 2013" could mean the 2013th Eurovision Song Contest e.t.c., in this context the average English speaker will understand that 2013 refers to a year.
• The long-standing precedent is that Eurovision articles should use British English with -ise spellings, so it's "organise" not "organize". Yes, it looks unimportant but yet it is something that can upset editors (and readers) easily. See WP:ENGVAR for the general rules on the issue - I will by default use Oxford spelling as a personal preference but I will change style depending on the article.

I respect that the English Misplaced Pages does not hold a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to writing articles, and I hope this long response shows that I do take suggestions from other language projects seriously. Many thanks for providing them. CT Cooper · talk 12:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanna stress first, that I didn't mean to totally separate paragraphs for everything, just separate lines & fewer paragraphs & just for the lead info, but it all came out as bigger spaces between the different lines. Though I still thought it's better as well but I understand that not each sentence should appear as an individual paragraph. If you look at the Hebrew article you can see how I seperated between lines in comparisson to paragraphs.

& of-course I see you adressing my things seriously & take time to respond. Thank you for that.

For the few points:

• Preliminary rounds are as important & even more as they build the final list. Therefore I didn't change this to begin with - just brought it up here. To me it just looks weird that the final-table is somewere in the middle of the article with more things added after the contest or that it's towards the end of the article with info about non-participating countries afterwards - with all kinds of explanations above it & under it in different aspects of the contest. It looks "automatically placed". I also add that many other Wikipedias writte the semis first & final afterwards. However I strongly believe there are two incidential factors for that: 1st is that many wikipedias copy & relate on the English Misplaced Pages. 2nd is that on the English & other Wikipedias people used to create first the semis tables & fill them as they were held first, & when the final approched they just created it's table so automatically placed it at the continuation of the article. That's how I remember it used to be few years ago in the build-ups to older contests. Eventually, I still believe the final table it the main event & most interesting for readers - including the overall winner song & artist within it - so should appear first on the article. & the content-table can serve the reader to also jump to the semis & other subjects.
• As for first definition, I strongly believe it's not complete without mentioning the EBU & the network. It's like writting an article about list of presidents or the general term "president". Also writting on a certain president with explanation he operates as a head of a certain country, like: "President "x" of country "x" in the years "x"-"x". The same goes for ESC - as the general ESC article should explain it's organised by EBU via "Eurovision" network, so does each specific contest as the pieces that holds together the general ESC frame. As: "Eurovision Song Contest "x" is the "x" annual international... of Eurovision network organised by EBU.
• As for mentioning the 58th edition - I thought about this too & came to think that this is the main contest of EBU while other EBU contest's have additional titles - such as "Children/Youth Eurovision Song/Dance contest" while the others are simply different names: "Eurovision Dance Contest" & "Eurovision Young Musicians". So I think the old-classic ESC can stay simply as the "58th annual international song contest" as long as specifying the names of the other contests at their articles.
• In general, I see the best way as start the article with full definition that will be seperated at list by line-space, than the rest lead info, than general explanations on the songs styles, languages & artists (genres & writters) with the detailed final & than semis table. & afterwards show all the preperations for the contest events in the frame of preperations of the EBU, preperations of the hosting country & at the end preperations of the general countries including those that couldn't participate because all kinds of difficulties. In the Hebrew wikipedia we also detail with table by summarising National or private choices at the different countries with writting their responsible-broadcasters. But that's because there it has a concensus not to writte independet articles about "country x in ESC x" (like "Armenia in 2013 ESC"), only general articles about countries in ESC are allowed (like "Armenia in ESC").
• Another suggestion I have which I think some might like: As I added a paragraph about the songs styles (on the Hebrew wikipedia), I also add on the songs/artists table a column of the songs styles called: "Genre, Nature, Rhythm". For example for Denmark: "Pop Celtic, cheerful romantic, up-tempo.

Sorry for long comment but I think it's important & interesting to discuss about. :-) אומנות (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning in this regards that on the 1996 ESC article the final-table is written first & the qualifying round is written beneath it. Though there it's internal qualifying-round without public involvement & broadcast, it still bares the same meaning of screening songs to the final event of choosing the overall winner. On the other hand at the 1993 ESC the pre-qualifying round (of eastern-Europe public contest) appears before the final ESC table. & on the 1956 ESC article there is also the mention of the EBU as the contests organiser right after the 1st definition as the top lead info (though it's the 1st contest, still it's an article about specific contest & not the main article). So I wanted to add these 2 examples if these can further highlight my points & views. אומנות (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, on the paragraph point. It might be different in Hebrew, but in English it is simply bad grammar to start a new line without completing the previous one unless one is starting a new paragraph, so that format isn't going to work here I'm afraid.

On the order, for the reasons I gave earlier, I'm not supporting putting the final results before the semi-final results. I see no pressing reason to deviate from the chronological order which has worked very well; really this seems to be trying to fix something which isn't broken. Some ESC year articles may have things in a funny order because a lot of them are a mess and need to be cleaned-up to the standardised format.

On the lead wording, I think mentioning the Eurovision network would be a good idea, and possibly also the EBU, although both may be excessive in the opening sentence. Arguably tying it to the Eurovision network would be sufficient at the point, which is clearly a part of the EBU. Aside from this, again, I think changing "58th annual Eurovision Song Contest" is fixing something which isn't broken. Junior Eurovision Song Contest is still a Eurovision network song contest, therefore the statement proposed is wrong, or at least overly ambiguous, so I cannot support it.

I'm afraid I'm not entirely following your second to last point on overall article layout. Some general points though, the article should primarily be written in prose and tables only used when necessary. I don't see any major issue with the current location of non-participants, although I'm not necessarily against having it mentioned earlier. It's unfortunate that the Hebrew Misplaced Pages chooses not to have Country in the Contest articles because many are well developed, most clearly pass Misplaced Pages:Notability, and one or two have good article status. CT Cooper · talk 22:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

About paragraphs I mean making spaces between different details, of course not in the middle of the same subject or sentance - especially between the primary definition as independent & than just go down to a new line - not even a new paragraph, for the dates, host & countries lead info. It just looks too heavy for reading as the whole lead is written as one "block" of information, without any lines-seperation. That's just what I mean in this matter.

"The 2013 Eurovision Song Contest is the 58th Eurovision Song Contest" is repititive phrasing. Maybe it worked fine so far because people who prefered it another way didn't express their opinion about this. I also understand that the 2nd mention of "Eurovision Song Contest" gives a link to the main article with the EBU info, but it still makes the reader go watch the main article rather then getting the complete info that places each individual contest in the full frame that organises it. I'm glad you partly see it this way too, at least with mentioning the "Eurovision" network. In this regard, many people think "Eurovision" is the song contest itself, they don't know about the existance of the network that the contest's name is simply attached to. That's also why I think it's important to mention it in each contest's article.

I don't have a problem with the end-location of the non-participants. I refered to the location of the final table almost at the end of the article - after all the preperations of the EBU & the host country which are also too detailed about the host city Malmo, to my taste; When what's beneath it is like "left-overs" information on countries that aren't involved in the contest this year. It just looks to me as the article emphasizes the preperations & general detail about the city of Malmo's considered venues, the city general nature, ticket sales etc', while the songs & the final as the central-main thing of the subject are being detailed only after all the above-mentioned. It's like people are first of all interested to learn about a finalized-finish product (as the final production evening/evenings of the contest) & than learn more details about the build-up things & events. Just like seeing a finished-decorated house & afterwards being interested to learn further in which ways the house was fixed, painted etc' to achieve it's final look. That's what I ment by my approach that tends towards reverse chronological order. I also gave the 1996 example as a possibility that the contributer there also thought my way & not because he contributed in a messy way, as when it was written the 1996 contest was entirely a past event so he got more perspective how to arrange the article the way he thought right. That's why I think this example can suuport my claim for other people that might see it this way. אומנות (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. In English, there are only two options when one has completed a sentence and wants to start another - start a new paragraph or don't start a new paragraph, there is no in-between option. There are two styles of formatting paragraphs - starting a new line and indenting it by a few spaces, or skipping a line and leaving a space between paragraphs. As per clear precedent and MOS:PARAGRAPHS, skipping a line is the method used on the English Misplaced Pages to start a new paragraph. Starting a new line without indenting will be looked at as either starting a new paragraph incorrectly or continuing an existing one wrongly. On the same token, I should note MOS:PARAGRAPHS discourages one line paragraphs, as they inhibit flow, a view which I agree with.

Yes, I recognize that there is repetitive phrasing and if another way of wording it could be found that doesn't have its own downsides, then great, but I think that a repetitive opening is ultimately superior to one that is ambiguous or inaccurate. As for the issue of paragraphs being overly long, the paragraphs of the lead in this article and in Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (example of the longer lead post-contest) are well within what is acceptable. The lead in this article is six lines long (does vary with computer resolution), in comparison, the paragraphs in a 2012 published novel that was sitting near me vary from about eight lines long to twenty-four lines long. Similarly, a travel guide also sitting near me has paragraphs varying from about five to fifteen lines long.

On the order, I simply don't accept the basic premise of what you arguing, which is "earlier on = more important", because in an encyclopedic article, like a book, no such presumption exists. MOS:LAYOUT is silent on this particular issue, but the overwhelming precedent is that articles on series of events are in chronological, or failing that logical order, with no regard to importance. I think there are good reasons as to why this is the case. These include:

• When one repeatedly jumps around different time periods it completely destroys the flow when read end-to-end - an issue I'm particularly conscious of as someone who deals with spoken articles.
• Articles are supposed to written for a general audience, most of which won't know much about the contest, so by having preparation first it allows readers to make sense of what is coming in regards to process and rules e.t.c. Putting the finals first is particularly confusing as some readers won't understand what the final is, why half the given number of participants is missing, and will have to hold those thoughts until the semi-finals and preparations are covered.
• The other major issue is subjective vs. objective ordering - by ordering things chronologically, the order is determined by logic and therefore editor bias is removed. When sections are ordered by importance, it is down to the personal opinion of editors on what is important and what isn't, which is potentially introducing a bias. The opinion that the final is the most important thing is just that, an opinion - there are plenty of reasons why the semi-finals can be considered just as important, and when one starts relegating the preparation sections as well the issue becomes even more subjective. As I see it, ordering by importance is potentially opening a massive can of worms for very little real benefit, and to repeat myself, is fixing something which isn't broken. It is far simpler to let readers use the contents to jump to what they see as important rather than having editors dictating it for them. I accept that some level of judgement on importance has to made for the lead, but that is unavoidable, and disputes over over whether both issue A or B should be included in the lead can be resolved by including both - while in contrast, the article must be in absolute particular order.

The 1996 article has been a free-for-all for years, and it is not the work of one person. It is currently rated C-class so using it as an example for other articles is potentially problematic. I do not deny that multiple individuals exist which want to order by importance - as I mentioned earlier, this has been proposed before. However, there has been years of discussions on how to layout and format Eurovision articles and the order has never really been a major point of contention.

For reference, here are some good and featured articles in a chronological order format from a wide mixture of topics: 2008 Summer Olympics (as are the others; this one is just a GA), World War II (the war itself, pretty important, is section four), 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World (a letter, but still written chronologically), United States Senate election in California, 1950 (particularity interesting as the results tables are actually placed at the end, the opposite of what is being proposed for this article; makes sense in this case so to prevent the tables interrupting the flow of the text), 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash (section covering the cause of the crash is well into the article), and Winfield Scott Hancock (typical of any bio - strict chronological order). CT Cooper · talk 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add emphasis on CT Cooper's points about consensus. The members of Project Eurovision engaged in a very lengthy debate a few months ago regarding layout standards, which resulted in a standardized layout which was easy to read for a person unfamiliar with the Eurovision Song Contest. This layout was tested on the 2012 article which subsequently gained GA-class status and a first on such annual articles for WP:ESC. This layout style has been rolled across other articles (up to 1976 I think) by myself, but has since been postponed due to the fact I was busy as a Games Maker at London 2012 last summer, and further became busier with other projects in real life. I do intend to resume the task on all the remaining articles once I find a spare moment. Wesley♦ 02:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okey, I don't argue anymore about final-table ahead of semis. I understand they are build-ups & understand the objective-chrnological order side of the claim. With that, there are shortages of cosing an opposite side of bias & there are other kinds of concensus here I need to adress. This subject has the "show elenebt" as the public event, & the preperations event as the "backstage" events. That's with puting both final & semis verses preperations:

The songs are the components & realization of ESC, the key of the show, the main goal & purpose of the contest as this article's subject. The songs are the reason why ESC is being held in the first place (as chronological methapore emphasis) - therefore their info is timeless-level in regards to the preperations. Also, chronologicaly the songs were chosen already at their countries before, or in paralel, to the preperations of the EBU & the host. I know that also the songs semis-placing & countries votes are based on the earlier draws. Interested readers can still read about this in a clear way under a "Background" chapter, as well as reading generaly that there were draws held, at a top general "Format" chapter. Plus after the contest, there are other most interesting details of things that occured during the live shows (like with the interuption of Spain's song with Jimmy Jump in 2010-Oslo/Baerum). These are legitimate aspects to lead the article that cancell a bias feel. A book is for a long reading-adventure. So I don't see a book as a good comperisson to wikipedia.

• 2 important things that highlight what interupts me in this respect:

1: The preperations also deal with trivial & general information that is more relevant to the history of Sweden in ESC & Malmo. Examples: Christer Bjorkman adviced the public not to by tickets before their official release...Malmo also hosted the contest in another venue in 1992...Gothnburg arena was 1 of the contenders & can hold up to xxxxx spectators... Malmo has a population of xxxx citizens.

2: The song's-tables chapter is called "Results". The results are only the last 2 columns (points, placings). It should be called "Songs details" or "Details", to reflect all the detailing columns. (Let alone think how it looks at 1956 ESC article under "results", when all the information there is anything but the results that were never revealed or approved for that year). Malmo's city nature deserves a focus-matter for "Malmo" article. Here it should for the least be at the continuation of the article, even if there wasn't any discussions about this before. To me it looks broken. I also know that this is quite new concensus as all "location" detailed chapters about the hosts didn't exist a few months ago, I remeber seeing all this styling of details only on the Portuguese wikipedia.

This 2 above highlight, for me, a tendency to create merely neutral chronological writting that creates some bias towards preperations all the way up to make a chapter as "final results of the countries", on the expense of focusing on the representatives of the perofrmances that comprises the show itself. To me, that misses the article's goal.

Also think about my proposal to add some explained paragraph, or another table-column or both, about the song's music styles. Such information can be both interesting & enreaching to a lot of readers plus gives more focus to the shows-performances. That's also especially relevent as this year the songs are arranged by SVT according to the music & the performers styles.

• I don't have a problem with long paragraphs as long as they elaborate on the same aspect. The lead info is general presentation, touches all different aspects about the subject & the fact is that previous ESC articles here such as of 2012 & 2011 ESC's, have paragraph seperations at the lead info as well so I'm not breaking this concensus: Dates & venue details in 1 paragraph & space for a new paragraph about participating/withdrawing countries. That's also how I generally contributed on the Hebrew wikipedia & that's what I basically ment for seperation according to subjects-aspects, not that each sentence or 2 sentences deserve a paragraph automatically.

On the other hand, there are very small paragraphs in these article that even get their own "sub-chapters" (like "Ticket-sales" & "Graphic-design") that should be unified under "Background" or "Preperations". Also graphic design company & sponsors (TeliaSonera, Schwarskopf), should be introduced at the lead info. Otherwise it's as if there is one consensus here & another there for such small aspects & info-pieces.

I hope it's clearer now I didn't mean "jumble" the chronology. Basically my proposal is first giving a general description of the Eurovision format - voting-method, arrengement of participants, than details of the performances - the songs tables. Than, introduce a "Background" or "Preperations" chapter that will consentrate on the EBU & host country in their respective preperations chronological order including detailing the draws-details with countries-groups devisions according to past voting patterns as the backstage information - behined the shows. For me, this is the way to achieve the article's goal.

• With other EBU contests definitions, I ment that just as each contest has it's own title, it can also be put in the general explanation of "Annual international songs/dance contest" so it won't be ambiguous. I will give specific examples as I didn't give before:

Junior Eurovision Song Contest of year "X" is the "X" edition/production of the annual international juniors/young singers songs contest of the Eurovision network.

Eurovision Dance contest of year "X" is the "X" edition/production of the annual international dancing/dancers contest of the Eurovision network.

That way, The classic Eurovision contest for grown-up singers, as the oldest & most familiar contest, simply stayes uniquely "naked" from additional titles, with the descrpition of annual international songs contest of the Eurovision network - hence removing unclarity to be confused with other Eurovision contests.

Also the existing definition Eurovision Song Contest "X" is the "X" Eurovision Song Contest is ambiguous since the "Junior Eurovision Song contest" also falls under the category of a "Eurovision Song Contest". So this is like a round-argument that I don't accept & I think my proposal is exactly the solution for that.

I also need to point out that some Junior ESC articles give links to this grown-ups Eurovision that need to be fixed. Look at 2003 Junior Eurovision Song Contest & 2004 Junior Eurovision Song Contest primary definitions for example.

• Another thing, I set yesterday going through the talk pages of 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012 ESC's & I imagine how many other discussions took place. Still, former discussions don't prevent future involvement & open minded. So I'm glad you are both adressing my suggestions, as also a reader, I think these certain things still need to be taken into consideration. אומנות (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid my replies are going to be a lot more to the point and generally shorter from now on, as my attempts to deal with these proposals cannot come at the expense of my other obligations both on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. Also, I must be frank, I'm having difficulty following what you are saying in places.

Again, I and this project do not accept the view that section order is linked to importance. As for the book analogy, it doesn't work completely, but they like encyclopedic articles are a review on a topic written in chronological/logical order, divided into chapters (sections), which can and often are read from end to end. They, unlike let's say a newspaper, are not ordered by importance, and that was more my main point.

I do not recognize any bias in sections related to preparations in general. However, if there is a problem with individual parts of such sections, they should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and the answer is not to move everything around for no benefit. In general though I am against determining content based on what one finds to be interesting, as that is a personal opinion - WP:WEIGHT is the ultimate judge.

I'm not following how calling this article "Eurovision Song Contest 2012" could be ambiguous - it is capitalised, meaning it is a proper noun, meaning it refers to a unique entity - so it should be clear to an English speaker that this refers to one content and one contest only. The same applies to the "58th Eurovision Song Contest" - clearly a unique entity in English grammar, so one contest only. The problem with something like "58th international Eurovision Network song contest" is that it could mean the 58th ESC or the 58th EBU song contest (ESC + JESC) - that's what makes it ambiguous. Clarifying this in other articles isn't a solution, since this article has to stand on its own. CT Cooper · talk 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your claim this article stands on it's own & that other contest's articles specified definitions can't cover for it. On the other hand, capitalization for a proper noun still doesn't make it a better soloution, it doesn't make-up as varification for the reader what is ESC, it's only like a fake-technical solution. Also, these is a claim you explain for the 1st time, only now I understand you clearly regarding this matter. & just to emphasize, I didn't talk about changing the article's name - just the definition inside it precisely to expand with explanation on the article's name. You interpreted further what I said.

Again, I understood the guidelines you, as well as this Misplaced Pages, are following by. Still, you refered to some matters as un-written-common habits, not official rules. That's why I feel unclarity & I turned to explained as best as I could about this specific subject that deals with main live shows in contrast to preperations. That's also unlike Olympics that have multiple events & other subjects you mentioned, that I checked their articles. It's not understandable for me how everything is set in stone as appropriate for merely chronological order, without any individual & different subjects cases to take into consideration. That's why I thought there can still be flexibility. Other than that, as you said, I emphasised 2 inside-chapter elements as well as explaining how it can look bias to the other side. So I have the feeling that something is broken in different views.

With all that, frankly your opening reply leaves some bad taste, as I specified on your personal talk page an apologetic reply to handle it nicely with explaining on-going problems I still have & the time & energy I dedicate myself. & you are precisely now replying it takes much of your time. You can imagine I have other obligations as well. You can imagine I also didn't expect you to be the only one to handle this & reply, you took this matter under your hat. While I understand general guidlines this project is followed by, I myself still wish more people would have expressed their opinions as I brought up many different issues & vies as well as some consensus halls on previous articles - especially paragraph seperation that exists at the lead info of previous ESC articles that I just wanted to practice on this article's lead info as well. Anyway I can & I would like, to read other & another views & suggestions. Regardles, with the time I dedicated, I do realy appreciate & thank you for the time you dedicated for discussing me & explaining me so far. אומנות (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, so much material to read in this debate that my head is on the verge of a mental breakdown. And for the record, CT Cooper hasn't been the only editor to respond here. I left a reply too which seems to have been buried in the midst of the argument. Chill-out, relax, breathe, and start from the beginning but cover each point one-by-one rather than trying to cover several points at the same time - thus avoid mass-confusion between both parties involved. Wesley♦ 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well frankly there comes a point where you can either pretend all is well, or you can tell a user the truth, which in this case is that their efforts may not produce the results they want because you're not understanding their thoughts and that you might not be able to give a detailed response to every thought they put out - I made a choice, and I have no regrets over it. Yes, it would be good to have other editor input - but the reality is that core Eurovision editors that are willing to take the time to reply to threads like this are very small, for which me and Wesley are two of them. To be clear, I was not complaining about the time I had spent on this, since that is my decision, but instead just making clear the reality of the situation. That aside, I agree with Wes that this needs to be broken down a bit, as the complexity of the current debate may be putting others off.

Core English grammar rules exist for a good reason and expecting readers to understand them is a standard presumption on any English Misplaced Pages article - doing so is not a "fake-technical solution" - there is negligible chance of any English speaker not understanding what "Eurovision Song Contest 2012" or "58th Eurovision Song Contest" means, because it is clear they are unique entities. I have already indicated that I'm open to changing the lead, but only if concerns I have laid out clearly are resolved.

If you want to pursue the idea of ordering by importance, you are free to do so, but in my opinion it is a non-starter. As I have demonstrated in the reference articles given earlier, the practice is practically non-existent in good or featured articles, which act as role models for this project, and the idea is deeply flawed for the reasons I have already laid out. I never said there wasn't flexibility, there is, hence why I used the term "logically" as well as "chronologically", but that is step removed from creating rules on ordering by importance which have no basis in policy or practice.

On paragraphs, actually I have made clear that one sentence paragraphs and starting sentences on a new line when not starting a new paragraph clearly go against both MOS:PARAGRAPHS and long established English grammar rules on paragraphing - both of these are written. MOS:PARAGRAPHS establishes that one paragraph equals one block of text and that paragraphs have to be separated by a blank line. To complement this, WP:LEAD regulates the number of paragraphs - with four being the maximum for very long articles. The format here might be good for the Hebrew Misplaced Pages's needs, but the Manual of Style for the English Misplaced Pages, which all articles are ultimately expected to follow, will not allow it here. CT Cooper · talk 03:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On the side note, this discussion has clearly moved beyond just this ESC 2013 article and is now about the formatting and layout of many or all Eurovision articles. I would suggest that a re-boot take place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eurovision, where these issue are normally discussed. This would also present an opportunity for אומנות to break-up his ideas into individual proposals, each in a separate sub-section on the talk page. If it would help, he could also draft a template for how his ideas would look in his sandbox, as demonstrating it visually might make it easier for myself and others to understand. CT Cooper · talk 03:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I admited my difficulties to you with explaining how much effort I put & that I didn't expect you to adress everything. The truth is you pushed this with your personal-time comment & made unpleasent feel. You could have clarified earlier that the long comments aren't convenient for you at all without being personal. You were also not always fully clear with your explenations to things you did adressed, therefore I wrote longer comments thinking it will increase mutual understanding & as you replied also longer at the beginning, which I thanked you for. So I thought that was okey with you. That's the whole story. Now let's put this behined.

Wesley, I'm writting my comments slowly & peacfully even though it looks like they were written without "breathing". I previously wrote "thank you both for adressing my comments". Later on, I said that I wish more people would have adressed this subjects, meaning in addition to the both of you. :-)

Now I understand the line-seperation explaining. Still, I also adressed spliting info-types to paragraphs (with blanck spaces) by aspects, as the examples of splitting of the lead info on the 2012 ESC & other ESC articles on these Misplaced Pages as I mentioned.

I also thought of moving these discussion to a more main page, but didn't want it to look as I'm trying to push my thoughts to more places & didn't know if there is permission to move content. It might take me a lot of time to make a sandbox as I have lots of information to write. In the meantime I can discuss on the ESC project page, probably at the next days. אומנות (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have said or implied nothing that was not perfectly within the behavioural policies of this project. I have the right to state my own personal situation and inform editors that I don't understand what they are saying, and as result when I do so, I will not be offering any apologies.

As for the clarity of my explanations, I have tried to be a clear as I can without being heavily pedantic. I'm glad you understand the line separation issue now. I will approach any further proposals to re-organize paragraphs with an open mind, but I will be more receptive of proposals which clearly follow policy.

On the discussion issue, I don't have any objections to copying this discussion over to WT:ESC, but I think it would be simpler to just start a new thread. CT Cooper · talk 07:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully support CT Cooper's proposal to start a new thread over at WT:ESC. However, it may be advisable to divide the thread into sub-threads to cover all the topics that אומנות has raised. This will make life more easier for other members of the project to see exactly what is going on, and not feel intimidated by the size of the thread in itself. As most members of the project know by now, I enjoy participating in open discussion. However, when posts are becoming as long as these have, then I tend to ignore them as they do nothing more than confuse the brain and in turn make an editor forget what the main topic was in the first place. Wesley♦ 13:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

CT Cooper, so I have the right to tell how I feel as you say what's on your mind & that I didn't always understand you as well as part of this continous long-comments that took both from my time & your time. You also didn't provide at first some explanations, & it doesn't make you "Pedantic" when you do so. I told you something as a person to a person. I didn't blame you for trying to offend me on purpose, but you stick to Wikipedias behaviour codes. I asked to put this behined, therefore didn't expect any apology, just understanding.

I also already proposed paragraphs with the examples of 2011 & 2012 ESC'S, with sepearation of dates-venues from participants-withdrawls for example, to make at least some seperation as it already exists in the consencus here. But you still just give general reply about Misplaced Pages's policy.

So I don't feel anymore I know how to communicate with you in a good & productive way for me. I won't respond anymore to personal issues & you won't convince you were totally okey. The fact is that Wesley adresses me in a more warm way. I will just leave smaller proposlas I have again. If someone wants me to explain further about my proposals at the new thread I opened, I will wait a few days to let other potential people express their opinions or ask something about this. If CT Cooper, Wesley, or anybody else won't find this proposals feat as well, than I'm sorry I couldn't be more of a help. אומנות (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

אומנות, yes you do have the right to tell other editors how you feel, but don't expect them to take such unjustified accusations lying down. For one, there are a few corrections I need to make: I explicitly said I wasn't being pedantic, so I don't know what "doesn't make you "Pedantic" when you do so" means exactly. I gave clear explanations for everything regardless. I never said you expected apology, "offering no apologies" is an expression meaning that one feels that haven't done anything wrong. As for putting it behind me, I'm sorry but you're the one making the accusations, so if you want to put it behind you, stop making them. CT Cooper · talk 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, I just wanted to share 1 more time things in lentgh & I felt good after that & after writting you on your talk page. & than I saw your comment that was like pushing something that was alredy over especially that it can't come "on the expense of your other obligations" & this upseted me. When you responded afterwards "that I need to hear the truth" you just increased the feeling that you want me to go away from here & made me feel you regret talking to me in the first place. The "Pedantic" was a general comment, that explaining things even in deep details doesn't make anyone pedantic, nor me nor you. This is especially important for me in this same regard, as sometimes the only way to progress a discussion is go down to details. That's all I ment. אומנות (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost lost for words here, to be honest. I was stating why I had to reduce the length of replies; ironically I did so to prevent any ill feeling that I was being overly dismissive when I stopped giving lengthy responses - at no point did I tell you to go away. If I did want you to go away, I would have just ignored you and stopped replying. If you don't want to accept the correct meaning of what I said, then so be it. CT Cooper · talk 18:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okey, now I can see clearly what you were meaning by that. On internet such comments can look very double-meaning & as the discussion progressed I got this feel. Now it's clear to me as if you told me face to face, where someone can understand the tone & meaning of the things of the other person. Thanks. אומנות (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for here & other ESC articles I think are important

Styles

Adding a column at the song's table of "Genre, nature, rhythm" to each song. Also explenations on the genre song's styles at the body of the text. Like "Spain, Croatia & Denmark have Celtic-music influances."

"Results" name

Change in other ESC articles the "Results" chapter name to "Songs" - only the last 2 columns refer to scores.

Location seperation from host preperations

Regarding chronological order - The "location" chpater is full with general non-chronological host city info (population, land-area, people's nationalities). This is too excessive for host-preperations. It should be at the least seperated that general city-figures & previous hostings of ESC will appear under "location" chapter as with only general details that have no chronological order. On the other hand, the specific information about host city & chosen venue preperations for the specific ESC, will stay according to chronological guidelines under a chapter called "host preperations".

After the general guide-lines explanations these are the smaller proposals I can think of for now. Thanks for your attnetion. אומנות (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As has been said, this involves all articles, and should be posted on the WP:ESC talk page. Until then I shall not add my thoughts on this here. -- ] 15:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with AxG. אומנות proposals are for ALL Eurovision Song Contest by year articles and not just this one, so it makes logic sense to move this to the project talk page. Although I personally feel like we're regurgitating old discussions that have already been concluded less than 6 months ago, and nobody has found fault with the agreed layout so far. Plus what was agreed seems to be working perfectly and has gained the 2012 Good Article classification. If we start altering things again, then we need to be cautious that it doesn't result in downgrading the good articles we have worked so hard to achieve. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Wesley♦ 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would be of any help to אומנות if s/he was to refer to the previous discussion regarding layout styles for annual articles. It may provide some useful insight into what was discussed by members of this project. Please note though that the user shouldn't edit the old discussion as it is in the archives now. Wesley♦ 17:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

axg, as I understood it has been eventually said to open a new thread here.

Wesley, I proposed some musical-styles editions & change the "results" name. I recoognise the "location" thing is bigger issue. You say nobody found any fault, but I'm someone that thinks these things have fault. But of course I don't wanna complecate things in relations to your previous debates & hard work & I respect that. Thanks for the link, I did wanted to ask you were I can see it.

I'm also sorry, but I already anyway moved my proposals to the ESC project following your previous comments, before I saw your additional comment here with the link. אומנות (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Iceland and Malta

The sources for the Icelandic and the Maltese entries are missing. They can be found at - among other sites - Esctoday.Aejsing (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorians will represent Armenia in the Eurovision 2013

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarBoyGarik (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Leanne Mitchell for the United Kingdom

FYI, there's been Twitter talk saying that Leanne Mitchell is representing the UK with Misplaced Pages being cited as a source. I looked at Leanne Mitchell's article and sure enough there was a Eurovision section, but I removed it because there were no references, making it seem highly unofficial. Dfizzles (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a Twitter from ESC Xtra announced Leanne Mitchell, but was quickly deleted. -- ] 21:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I tweeted them and an editor tweeted me back saying that a new junior editor made the mistake of using the unverified information on Leanne Mitchell's Misplaced Pages article as a sourceDfizzles (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Commentators

Hi all

Recently I've found two sources for the 2013 French 'Fianl' commentators, it comes from esctoday but I don't know if it's reliable to put in the 2013 page, so I was wondering if I could have your oppinions if I can add it in or not.

Here are the links http://www.esctoday.com/39579/special-selection-committee-to-select-french-entry-and-representative/ and http://www.closermag.fr/content/73949/eurovision-mireille-dumas-et-cyril-feraud-rempilent-en-2013

Regards Mrluke485 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ESCToday is considered reliable on Misplaced Pages. CT Cooper · talk 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Page target to vandalism

F.Y.R. Macedonia has been removed from SF2.

Clearly rivalry or angst towards them...shouldn't we really protect this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.104.171 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The activity level on the article appears to have risen substantially recently, and it is becoming difficult to manage. Requests for protection can be made at WP:RFPP. CT Cooper · talk 23:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rhythm of Love

Is it actually confirmed that Alyona Lanskaya will perform "Rhythm of Love" in Malmö? Aejsing (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well eurovision.tv still lists the song for SF1, and well they are the number 1 source and must know more than we do at this time. --] 15:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Alyona has released "Solayoh", but there are no sources other than the single cover art yet. — Andreyyshore (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonnie Tyler confirmed

Turn it back you idiot. Bonnie Tyler is confirmed for the UK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.255.26 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As of now there is no official source that actually confirmed Bonnie Tyler and the song "Believe in me" as the UK entry. The BBC, the EBU or the singer/management have not confirmed this as a fact. Therefore, it can only be considered an unconfirmed rumour at this stage. Pickette (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the official twitter (https://twitter.com/BonnieTOfficial) and facebook (https://www.facebook.com/BonnieTylerOfficial) for Bonnie Tyler. Neither provides an official confirmation for Eurovision. Pickette (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC has now officially confirmed that Bonnie Tyler will represent the UK with "Believe in Me". This is an official confirmation. Pickette (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

May I say to the IP, to please be WP:CIVIL, and not make personal remarks, such as 'idiot'. --] 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian commentator

Olav Viksmo-Slettan will return as a commentator for the NRK broadcasting. This was confirmed in the NRK Chat during one of the heats of Melodi Grand Prix 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.245.90 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.245.90 (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo and Portugal

Earlier vandalism of the page included the creation of Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013. I think they qualify for speedy deletion. I don't want to make any errors in dealing with them so perhaps someone who is more well versed with Misplaced Pages policy can take a look. Pickette (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Both tagged with Misplaced Pages:CSD#G3. --] 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly an old friend of ours, known as Diogomauricio3 (talk · contribs) who has been mass creating hoax articles with sockpuppet accounts for over two years now. I thought he had might have gotten board, but clearly not. He will probably return - please drop a note on any suspicious accounts at WT:ESC or on my talk page. CT Cooper · talk 00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn songs

The songs "Rhythm of Love", "Imperija" and "Kismet" have all been withdrawn from the contest, however, individual song articles still exist with very limited information that has already been covered under each country's individual 2013 contest article. Should these articles be deleted? Pickette (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The articles should not be deleted at this time. J4lambert (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, don't just say that without giving a reason. I would personally merge those songs into the individual country article if they're not notable anymore. How have previously withdrawn songs been handled here on Misplaced Pages? Are they still considered notable? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Other withdrawn song articles have been handled with on a case by case basis. For example the 2012 entry for Italy Per sempre was withdrawn, but the song itself charted in the Italian music charts, and the article is well written too (although I wouldn't object to it being merged into Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 if a consensus is reached). Other withdrawn articles have been merged in the past too, into their respective " in the Eurovision Song Contest xxxx", for example the failed Lebanese entry "Quand tout s'enfuit", redirects to Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦ 08:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All three are redundant and already covered on the individual country pages. It's highly unlikely that they will be developed any further considering they will not take part in the contest. I think they should just be converted to redirect to their respective 2013 country article. Pickette (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point of view Pickette, but you are forgetting one vital issue here. What may be redundant to you, may be very useful to many other readers. Hence why I said we tend to deal with such articles on am individual case basis. Reviewing every aspect and building a consensus on whether the article may be better off merged into something else or expanded. Deletion isn't always the best outcome. Wesley♦ 08:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I incorrectly placed my previous comment underneath yours, it was meant to reply to the comment from J4lambert. However, this is my opinion on the matter. You may have a different perspective, but I offered my suggestion for dealing with this. Obviously I know my opinion is not going to be shared by everyone and I was in no way implying that my word would be the final say on these articles or that my opinion was superior to those of others. That's why I asked about this in the first place, in order to get feedback. Pickette (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

About the Hungarian song

I see there had been some issues about the language the song will be performed in. FYI: eurovision.tv says it will be Hungarian only. --SimoneMLK (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Crisalide (Vola)"

Should we change the title of Valentina's song to "Crisalide (Vola)"? I mean, that's its official release title. — Andreyyshore (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv lists it only as "Crisalide". In terms the contest, this page should follow the information provided there. Pickette (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv is specially slow at making changes and updates. It can take a few days until the title is corrected there. So, I don't take their website as the absolute truth. The official title of every song is what you can read on the single sleeve. Faezdel (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

True, they are in the process of uploading profiles and extra information for all entries. If the title doesn't change to include "(Vola)" after the passing of the deadline, then I'll change it back. This page covers the entry in the context of the contest, not what is released on a single cover. Pickette (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Would they pay attention to this kind of detail, though, now that they've already sent the information? Don't forget that Valentina's song from last year still used the instrumental of "Facebook Uh Oh Oh" in the semi-final, even though "The Social Network Song (Oh Oh-Uh-Oh Oh)" is slightly different from that point of view. — Andreyyshore (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The official artist names and song titles in terms of the contest are listed here: So far it is only listed as "Crisalide". If it doesn't change after the meetings next week, we can assume that the delegation of San Marino wants it billed as only "Crisalide" in terms of the contest. Pickette (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Guess what. They added the "(Vola)". — Andreyyshore (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Very observant of you. But they did it yesterday and guess what, I was the one who updated all of the pages and added (Vola). And I even moved the "Crisalide" page to "Crisalide (Vola)". Perhaps you can take a second look and make sure everything is up to date. Pickette (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that any talk page thread should reach a conclusion instead of just ending in a cliffhanger, so I just added that. If you thought that was rude, it was unintentional. Sorry. — Andreyyshore (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I did misinterpret it as being rude so I apologize for my reply. Pickette (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning artists

What is the scope of the returning artists section? Is it only covering main artists who have previously taken part in the contest as main artists, or should it also include participation of current main artists as backing vocals or on-stage performance support? Also there has been an addition to this section that lists backing vocalists from previous years that will provide backing vocals this year as well. Is this appropriate for this section? Pickette (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Imo, I would mention it if it's mentioned in a reliable source, such as Aliona Moon and perhaps Gor Sujyan. As for those two backing vocalists, I would say it's totally non-notable. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to Pickette's questions, the answer is yes to all. We have included backing vocalists who have returned as main artists on other article, so I see no reason as to why we would need to cease such operations. Wesley♦ 03:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I can agree on main artists who have previously appeared as backing vocalists, however, I think it's a bit trivial to include backing vocalists who are returning as backing vocalists again, such as in this case which is currently appearing on the page: "Lauri Pihlap and Kaido Põldma, who will support Estonia as backing vocalists, were among backing vocalists also for the Estonian winning entry in 2001 in Copenhagen." Pickette (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I misread that part about backing vocalists returning as backing vocalists. No they shouldn't really be included on this main article. Although I see nothing wrong in mentioning such details in brief on the respective "Country in Eurovision" article, as it would hold more relevance there. Wesley♦ 12:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a bit of a thought Pickette, as I have noticed you politely ask questions on the scope/layout of these articles. It may be of help to explore the project talk page and familiarise yourself with previous discussions (something which I found to be helpful when I first started on this project). In particular annual article debates and annual article layout style. These may help answer some questions for you. Feel free to drop me a line via my talk page if you have any queries; as I'll happily assist you. Regards, Wesley♦ 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A new logo

I have one question about the new logo which has been loaded, unnecessarily when I click on it I goes the old version and the new one not. Why? Kirilloparma (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It usually takes some time for the servers to properly update the images. I (as the uploader of the new logo) have tried to purge the image page and clear my cache several times, but with no positive results. Maybe we should just wait for a couple of days (it has worked for me in the past). Until then, you can see the properly updated logo here. For the time being, I generated a 280px-wide thumbnail to make the logo instantly update itself in the infobox, so that the other editors will understand that I actually did not mess the file up. The full-sized image will fix itself with time. — Andreyyshore (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be okay now. If you still see the old version, try clearing your browser cache. — Andreyyshore (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

O mie

The article lists that the song will be performed in Romanian, but the version that is in the Eurovision channel on YouTube is the version in English. Which version will be performed? (I'm planning to change it to English if otherwise, since that's the version in the first semi-final playlist.) --Sky Harbor 04:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The song was officially submitted in Romanian and it is listed on the official contest website as "O mie" with full Romanian lyrics. It should not be changed unless there is official word that the language has changed. Pickette (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Pickette is right on this one. Eurovision.tv (a website owned by the EBU) state the song title is "O Mie". We should not change the song title whatsoever, unless the EBU announce that the song will be performed entirely in English and with an English title. Wesley♦ 12:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm? There are songs in the Contest which are sung in English and have native language titles, or the reverse (e.g. "Alcohol is Free"). In the case that I raised, the title is still "O mie", but the version posted was the English version. --Sky Harbor 01:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There maybe a reason that we don't know about as to why the Eurovision channel of YouTube are only showing the English language version. Maybe there isn't a video clip for the Romanian version yet. Or the EBU wanted to provide an English version on their channel for their English viewers. Whatever the reason, we cannot solely assume that the version to be performed on stage in May will be the English version, unless of course there is an announcement from the EBU, Aliona Moon, or the Moldovan national broadcaster to state otherwise. So for now, we should go off what the sources state, which is Romanian version only. As for the Greek song, there is a footnote to provide an explanation to the reader that the song is in Greek, but the song title is in English, as that was the choice of the Greek participants. Wesley♦ 01:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov naming issue

Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov are entered in the contest as "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov" and not "Elitsa & Stoyan". Since this page covers the artists and songs in terms of the contest, the official name listed on eurovision.tv should be used. "Elitsa & Stoyan" is not even the name they were billed under when they entered the contest in 2007 (which is not relevant to this but just something to note). All other artist names and song titles reflect how they are appear in the table's source. Pickette (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to raise an issue regarding the naming choice for the Bulgarian representatives. Twice now Pickette has changed the name of the artists from what the majority of sources have them enlisted as ( and ) the edit summary for the second revert of the editor I find to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, especially after I had explained myself clearly in my own edit summary.

The main article for the duo is named as Elitsa & Stoyan, even Eurovision.tv have them majority listed by the same duo act name and not their individual names, as does ESCToday and also Eurovision.tv's Youtube page. However, Pickette seems to think because the participants profile on Eurovision.tv's page have then enlisted as "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov" that that take higher precedence over the majority of sources and despite the guidelines per WP:COMMONNAME. So to prevent any edit warring (which Pickette may not be aware that s/he may be on the verge of initiating here) I feel that opening up a discussion here, would be the most cooperative thing to do to find common ground and to achieve a mutual consensus. What are the views of everyone on how the duo's name should be presented as on this article? Wesley♦ 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, even google search shows that Elitsa & Stoyan produces 340,000 results, whereas Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov only produces 120,000 results. Thus common name would appear to be the surname-less version rather than the version Pickette wishes to use. Wesley♦ 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who came up with Elitsa & Stoyan but this duo never officially appears under that name. Even on the albums they have released together, their full names appear on the covers. In 2007, they appeared as Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov. The table source on this article references a page on eurovision.tv that lists the official artist and song title names as entered by the delegations. Are we going to override that with how the artist's names are mentioned in casually written articles by fansites? Their participant profile on the official contest website contains all of the official information regarding their participation so I'm not sure where the justification is that "Elitsa & Stoyan" should be used instead of that. Pickette (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who came up with the name, what does matter is that guidelines are followed. I've already mentioned WP:COMMONNAME above. WP:NCM and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are two others that I can think of at hand. The latter of those guidelines state that "when the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." A chosen name to be used needs to have "Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; and Consistency". I have already provided evidence to prove that the duo appear to be more recognizable under the pseudonym "Elitsa & Stoyan" based on the google search results, and other English-language sources. If we were to change the name in the table itself to a different version, then we need to maintain consistency by changing it elsewhere include the navigation boxes and the duo's article page as well. But like I said, if Elitsa & Stoyan are more established and recognized than Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov, then who are we to argue over why they are being shown on one source alone using the latter version rather than the former. Pickette, let's see what other have to say on this, please. Wesley♦ 03:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Typing a name surname-less in a search engine would produce more searches for anyone. The hits "Elitsa & Stoyan" pick up are just highlights of their name attached to their surnames. Here is the 2007 album cover where their full names are listed , the official mp3 release of their 2013 entry from the official website with their full names used and their album covers which feature their full names . And also all of the official listings of their entered name in the contest on eurovision.tv. Pickette (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No offence Pickette, but I have seen this scenario over naming issues many a time around here now, so I think I have gained a huge grasp on guidelines etc etc. If your version is the correct version based on what is shown via the participant profile of Eurovision.tv, then please explain why Eurovision.tv also use the name Elitsa & Stoyan on the video link, which is also on the very same profile page. So are we now saying that even the EBU have no competence and like to confuse people too? Like I've said twice now, let's see what others have to say on this matter so that we can build a consensus. Thanks! Wesley♦ 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just making my case for why I think their names should be listed with surnames. Am I not allowed to do that? You listed your evidence and I'm also listing mine. Let the people decide with all of the facts from both sides. Should Bonnie Tyler go by Bonnie because the name Bonnie returns more google searches or because as an artist she appears under her full name on all of her releases like Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov? Birgit Õigemeel and Hannah Mancini have both officially entered the contest as Birgit and Hannah, respectively. That's how they are listed in the contest and I would think that a wikipedia page that is devoted to covering all of the facts regarding the contest would list artist names as they appear in the contest. Pickette (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I mention Bonnie Tyler or the other artists you mentioned? No! So please try and avoid putting words into my mouth that I never said. Eltisa & Stoyan are listed only the participant profile with their surnames included, but the EBU's video presentation don't use the surname. Plus there are naming conventions and guidelines on Misplaced Pages, of which I have kindly provided links for you to check for yourself, and those guidances advise that common names are more favoured in circumstances like this. Take Ell & Nikki for example, we didn't list them down using their surnames. Duos evolve their stage names over time, that would explain the difference in stage name used in 2007 and 2013. Although the EBU shown them on articles as Elitsa & Stoyan for their 2007 also - there is the consistency. Anyhow, I need to get some sleep, its just gone 4:30am, and I've to be up in 3 hours time. No rest for the hard working. Wesley♦ 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said that you were talking about other artist names, I was just using them as an example. Elitsa & Stoyan never evolved into a stage name. They have always presented themselves as Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov just like I have provided you with years worth of their releases where not once do they bill themselves as Elitsa & Stoyan. And besides, what if the duo of Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov entered the contest under the name Bulgarian Drum Duo? Because Elitsa & Stoyan is supposedly a common name for them it would override how they are officially listed in the contest? (Again, not putting words in your mouth, simply another example) I think this article should stick with what's established and factual which is that Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov present themselves as a duo by their full names on all occasions and that the names of the artists are both fully and officially entered in the contest. The Elitsa & Stoyan wikipedia article should even be moved to reflect their more accurate duo name. Pickette (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the EBU listed them as Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov in 2007 as well: And I have listed the back cover of the 2007 compilation previously in this discussion where their full names are listed as well. Pickette (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You're being combative instead of working towards consensus, Wesley. Seriously. Pickette has a point here. Just because you were in similar scenarios over naming issues in the past doesn't mean that your word means consensus. Google hits aren't concrete evidence either per WP:GNUM.

If you notice in most articles on ESCToday and Eurovision.tv, for example, "Elitsa & Stoyan" is only mentioned in that form either in the headline, where space needs to be conserved, or after their full names were mentioned, often multiple times. For example: from Eurovision.tv, and from ESCToday. ESCToday, by the way, seems to call Elitsa by her first name alone often. Both these sites are also notably inconsistent with the naming. Nevertheless, most articles list them by their full names first.

Also, Elitsa and Stoyan are both notable individually. Why not link each name to their respective individual articles as with Esma & Lozano or Adrian Lulgjuraj & Bledar Sejko or Nodi Tatishvili & Sophie Gelovani? I also propose putting Birgit Õigemeel and Hannah Mancini's full names back in the article. What we need here is consistency and reliability. If outside sources are not consistent, then we should establish consensus on how to make things consistent on Misplaced Pages. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please bear in mind Mr Gerbear that I did point out that it was 04:30 in the morning (UK time) when I writing my comments, so I was rather tired at that time. I wasn't being combative, just putting my points across just as Pickette was. If I came across in that manner, then I do apologise as that was not my intentions. Although most of the project members on here know me well enough by now to know that I don't mince my words and beat around the bush. I say things as is and bluntly, honesty is the best policy right!? Call a spade, a spade. Anyhow, back to the matter at hand. The point Mr Gerbear makes about "if outside sources are not consistent, then we should establish consensus on how to make things consistent on Misplaced Pages", that was the whole point I was trying to make from the start. Notable and reliable sources seem to use two different versions of the participants names, which can become confusing for anyone reading them. Which is why we as a cooperative team need to work together to find a resolution on who we as a team decide to list such names on our articles. Take Lena Mayer-Landrutt for example. The EBU listed her under her full name in 2010, only to list her in 2011 as simply "Lena". A prime example of the EBU (or most probably the artist herself) opting to go for a more conciseness (shortened) variation.

Also, it may be worth noting that WP:GNUM does not state that Google hits aren't concrete evidence in regards to how we would list a name. WP:GNUM states that Google hits (aka The Google Test) should not be used to determine notability for the article subject themselves. It also goes on to state that "there is nothing wrong with pointing others to these sources when trying to get others to improve an article or to save it when up for deletion, even within one's comment. This is actually a good idea if you are looking for others to help save an article. But the results alone are not grounds for protecting an article from deletion.". In this aspect we are not talking about the notability of this very article nor are we trying to save an article from deletion, we are discussing the recognizability of the participants names. Plus WP:GNUM has only been nominated as a proposed guideline/policy for Misplaced Pages, so its not exactly a rock-solid guide for now.

In response to why not link each name to their respective individual articles. This would be because Elitsa & Stoyan have done individual work as solo artists up to and including 2003, from which point they appear to have formed into a duo act and thus have an article under their duo act's name. A similar case would be that of Ant & Dec, they have an article as a double-act as that is how they are mostly known by, however they also have individual articles (Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly) to cover any solo projects they may have done. We already know that Elitsa & Stoyan are an established duo act, but what we need to work towards is an agreement of who they need to be enlisted as, in accordance to guidelines and recognizability. Once again, sincere apologies for any combative tones that may have come across in my previous comments that were made during the early hours of the morning. Wesley♦ 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lena Meyer Landrut does not apply here as an example since the EBU have listed Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov by their full names on both occasions of their participation in the contest. All official sources regarding their careers and their participation in the contest list them by their full names. While the EBU have listed their names as Elitsa & Stoyan on the one youtube video you've cited which deviates from the use of their full names, on a subsequent and more recent video of their performance in the Netherlands, they used their official full names. Also, Mr Gerbear is right about all of the articles on eurovision.tv. They refer to them as Elitsa & Stoyan only in the title and then use their full name in the body of the article. Pickette (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind Pickette, I would appreciate if we waited for input from others too. I've been accused of being combative in my tone, while you are being just as equally combative in yours towards everything that I have written in here as well as on other talk pages in the past too towards myself. We cannot explicitly state that someone is right or wrong, until everyone has been able to have their say on the matter and agreed upon a solution. Nor have I said that one version should be more accurate than the other, I am merely saying that we have conflicting evidence which shows both versions are just as correct as each other, and so we need to establish by mutual consensus which variation everyone would prefer to be used - and I mean everyone. Wesley♦ 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm directly addressing the matter at hand here and not having a fight. We are supposed to discuss the issue, no? That is what I'm doing and I'm finding it hard to get all of my points across when you are allowed to provide a rebuttal to my point of view and the evidence I've presented, but in turn I have to wait for others to comment on the situation. And I address anything that it written to me or about me politely and thoroughly, I really have no interest in fighting with anyone especially people I don't even personally know. Pickette (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Commenting RE:GNUM, I linked that because it's illogical to use Google hit numbers as an argument for pretty much anything that has to do with proving notability, which includes which name is more common. While it's not policy, the logic stands. Nonetheless, both of you have been rather combative in some ways, but that's not what we're here to discuss. We need consensus from the rest of the editors. If someone could go to other editors and ask them to leave a comment here, that would be great. Things to take into consideration: Are Elitsa and Stoyan an established duo with other things in their discography that aren't about them together in Eurovision? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think another issue here is how we should list the names of the contestants on this page. Should they follow what has been officially listed on the eurovision.tv website and how they appear in the contest and contest releases by the EBU, or should they take after the names of the articles on Misplaced Pages? There are many examples on this page that would need to be addressed if the Elitsa & Stoyan name is adopted, such as, Hannah Mancini, Birgit Õigemeel, Esma Redžepova and Vlatko Lozanoski, Gianluca Bezzina, Agathonas Iakovidis, Cezar Florin Ouatu, Nodiko Tatishvili and Sopho Gelovani and El Sueño de Morfeo. All of these names appear differently in the contest than in their respective Misplaced Pages article. Perhaps this doesn't apply in this discussion but I think it's something that should be discussed. Pickette (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr Gerbear, I've left a note at WT:ESC in the hope that it gets more project members to engage in this slightly important debate. One can only but hope it works. On a different note though, I'm not overly fussed either way in regards to which name version is used, but it would be nice to find some sort of agreement within this project, as there are conflicting evidence in regards to the Bularian participants, and how they are named. For the sake of compromise, I don't mind opting for using "Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov" (directing to Elista & Stoyan page), rather than "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov". The comma just seems out of place in my opinion. Wesley♦ 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the Eurovision Song Contest, they should be listed by the names that are actually used in the contest broadcasts; if they use other names in different contexts, that can be explained in a footnote (although in this particular case that doesn't seem necessary). Of course the broadcasts are still about four weeks in the future, so we won't know the exact form of names used until the second semifinal, but (at least in my opinion) that just means that it doesn't really matter very much which names are used in the article right now. 82.197.31.180 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the article duo name Elitsa & Stoyan should stay. I think people here are making a big deal out of something that isnt really a big deal like what to write concerning this duos name at the ESC 2013 article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say leave the status quo as it is now, and then re-assess the situation after the contest is over. I'm not a fan of ampersands and they should only be used where there is a lack of space or in the case of group/organisation names, the latter applying here, per WP:& - however, I'm not a fan of using the comma in that way either. Currently I would say you can argue it either way, but the final determiner for this article should be the name used in the contest itself. CT Cooper · talk 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is very interesting to me, as I wondered myself a while ago about this issue. I didn't want to open this as I'm not so active here and saw there were discussions about this with "Ell & Niki". I still look at the project page sometimes, so when I saw the message for participants, I was glad to read the above to understand better myself and tell my opinion.

So first, I agree with CT Cooper that the simple thing is to wait for the contest, look how their names are written on the screen while they go on stage, as their official presentation at ESC 2013, which is what this article is about.

With that, after reading and learning about the varied arguments above, fpr now I totally support introducing their individual full-names. There are clear and enough examples that Pickette has given of their full names on internet/CD'S/their EBU's page. Also, we should remeber that even EBU provides News-articles with creativity, so it's natural that some titles will introduce "Elitsa and Stoyan" as more catchy rather than official; And still, their official EBU page is with their full names. On the other they did perform a lot together from 2003; Still, there is no clarity of stating themselves under a group name. Also the discussion about the value of google-search results in favour of "Elitsa and Stoyan" look as proven by all sides here as problematic and with contradictions in regards to their function and trust within the guidelines. Eventually, for me their official page and CD's are the reliable ones as formal and more accurate - just like this Encyclopedic article should be. Furthermore, this way the readers get more information here by learning their full names rather than private/semi names alone. Also and mostly, it cancells an option of falsely introduce singers with only semi-names under false groups - while other singers get to be introduced by their full names.

The general discussion here also reflects another thing I agree with Pickette about: Questioning the need for articles about ESC groups for singers that performed together and have their own articles on Misplaced Pages (which include their mutual ESC-performance-info) but don't have clear statements of performing under a group name.

About comma or "&/and", I myself prefer each singer name in a new row, in case of 2 or more names, without comma or "&". But since it's not acceptable here as I understand, I prefer the comma rather "&". That's because I see the comma as clarification for 2 or more seperated individual singers rather than the use of "&/and". Just my input on this as well.

Thanks for the above discussion that helped me understand some things as well. :) אומנות (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to whether an ampersand or a comma is used but if people are supporting the use of the name as it will appear in the contest, then we should use the table source from eurovision.tv which has all of the official names of the artists and songs listed there. I've been applying those names to this article for a while now and there are many artist names which deviate from how they appear on their respective Misplaced Pages articles. If the names change on screen during the airing of the contest, then I would without a doubt support their change in this article but in my opinion we should stick to what we know and what is listed on the official contest website. Pickette (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Cooper advised to leave things (status quo) as they are for now and wait until after the contest is over. So I'm inclined to go off that advice, especially as CT Cooper has been a member of this project for a very long time. And I am glad that someone has brought up the topic of ampersands "&", I was meaning to bring it up myself a couple of weeks ago. I was always under the impression they were not to be used, and should be replaced with the word "and" instead. As for the comma, it would be grammatically incorrect to use in such context as "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov", as it would make it imply that there is missing information that should follow the details - for example "Here, there, and everywhere". Notice how the comma separates word in a sentence but always uses the word "and" to separate the final word. In this case it would be grammatically correct to detail the duo as "Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov" without the use of the comma. Anyhow, as Cooper, IP82.197.31.180, and אומנות all stated, let's wait until the broadcasts have happened and see how the names are presented. After all it is only 2 weeks away - what harm is that to anyone? Wesley♦ 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

They similarly advised to have names appear in the article in terms of the contest. At this moment, the table source and the contest website listings do not support the name "Elitsa & Stoyan", which is the same source for all of the artist and song information in the table. To my understanding, it would be better to list their full names now and then swap to "Elitsa & Stoyan" should that name actually be the one in use during the broadcast. Also I think it would be best to find an official contest source for the name "Elitsa & Stoyan" and add it to the article if the table source is ignored. Pickette (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done a little bit of research on this matter and come across some interesting finds from a variety of official and/or reliable websites. The sites are as follows along with how they are enlisting the Bulgarian duo.

• Allcdcovers.com — The CD cover for Eurovision 2007 uses "Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov".
• Diggiloo Thrush — Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankoulov".
• ESCDaily.com — "Elitsa and Stoyan", although they also use the term "Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov-Stundzhi".
• ESCToday.com — "Elitsa & Stoyan Yankulov-Stundzhi".
• Eurovision.tv — "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov".
• Elitsatodorova.com (Elitsa's official website) — On Elitsa's official website under 'Projects' they use "Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankoulov.
• Stoyankoulov.com (Stoyan's official website) — An image uses "Elitsa & Stoyan". However on the same website they use the term "Stoyan Yankoulov & Elitsa Todorova".
• If you notice on these sites the majority use either "and" or "&", only one uses a comma. Even the artists official websites use the term "and" or "&". So I'd say ditch the comma and seeing as ampersands are frowned upon, go with the more likeable "and" along with the surnames of the duo. Wesley♦ 23:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me and if they indeed use the surname-less names on the broadcast or if it happens to change on the official website at any point, I'd support that use without question. Pickette (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should assume that the EBU made a grammatical typing error when they used the comma on their listing, "and" or "&" does seem more commonsensical. And as we're on the "&" subject, maybe it is better to change the & to and on the other parts of the participant tables too. Wesley♦ 00:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, eventually I'm also up for writting their full names for now, especially from thinking about preventing falsely introducing semi-names also for the meantime, until the broadcast will show their names introduction. Regarding the comma, in a body of a regular text-format the "and" indeed comes before the last detail in a list. But just for interest, on the Eurovision-EBU website, their names are wrriten with a comma both on the title of "singers" at Bulgaria's official song's page and on the 2nd-semi table page. Therefore I don't think it's an error when it comes to titles and table introduction or at least unintentional typo-error on EBU's part. However I understand that "and" can prevent any confussion of missing info so it's probably best. So I'm also glad that for now there is the compromise of showing their full names on the article. If others will still feel strongly, maybe it's good to also consider in the future introducing official groups and band's singers names/full-names on footnotes at the end of the articles. I myself am indifferent for names-footnotes if there is a clear-official group name. אומנות (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached a mutual compromise then, and I've been bold and implemented what has been compromised (well I did it during the early hours of the morning, as I was suffering with insomnia). Pheeewww, this has been a lengthy discussion ain't it!? Thank you to everyone who has participated, and happy editing! Wesley♦ 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion actually points out 2 more related aspects for future consideration when this article will keep being developed, following discussing EBU's website official-pages as an important source to follow: Final and Semi-Final tables as well as individual participants profiles (also compared to more free-written news-articles on this same website). 1: capitalized letters for all word's of non-English titles. 2: Additional writting of latin letters to all titles that contain foreign letters.
1: ESC official website pages introduce non-English titles with capitalization for all their words. This article capitalizing only the letter of the first word in non-English titles, while capitalizing all words of English titles and also all words of Cyprus Greek-letters title on the other hand. Examples from EBU's-ESC website, Estonia and Spain on the general table's and their participant profile pages: here+here and here+ here - "Et Uus Saaks Alguse" (not "Et uus saaks alguse"); "Contigo Hasta El Final" (not "Contigo hasta el final). Even concerning reference words (as "El" in Spanish) it introduces capitalization.
2: This article contains titles with Latin-letters alongside brackets with non-Latin lettered titles, so English readers know how to pronounce the original foreign ones. However, some don't have in accordance to EBU's website: Even on it's English lyrics pages of Croatia and Iceland participant's profiles it introduces only local letters-titles that aren't used in English or that have different pronounciation than in English. Croatia: "Mižerja" - should be added "Mijeria" title to explain the reading of the letter "ž". Iceland - "Ég á líf" is also different from English reading. Montenegro is an opposite case as EBU's website introduces only the Latin "Igranka" even on it's Montenegrin-lyrics page. And again on the other hand Cyprus example with both Latin and Greek writting here and on EBU's page of it's Greek lyrics.
Eventually, I think that for the 1st aspect there is clarity and unity on EBU's-ESC website, so this article should follow it with capitalizing other languages titles-words. For the 2nd aspect not follow EBU's website as it seems inconsistent, therefore providing additional English-Latin titles for all foreign ones on this article (Croatia, Iceland and local-Montenegrin letters for Montenegro's Latin title), as it benefits the English-speaking reader and maintains unity at this article. As been said somewhere above, the article should keep unity and consistency in accordance to follow consistency on official sources, but if those aren't consistent, then independently-adding details here is prefered for maintaining unity and clarity. Just something more to think to improve or think about. אומנות (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

1: Regarding your first point: Yes that is what the EBU have done, but Misplaced Pages has its own rules about songs and capitalisation, so that's not going to change.

2: The brackets show the song in it's native scripts for non-Latin alphabets like Greek, and Cyrillic, its not used to help pronunciation, "Mižerja", "Ég á líf" all use the Latin sript. --] 11:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since I saw that the English written-EBU website capitalizing all titles-words in all languages, it doesn't seemed as something set in stone at English and therefore at Misplaced Pages that can't be changed. There is also Cyprus that I mentioned with it's Greek title that all it's words are capitalized here, compared to others like Serbia's both latin and Serbian titles with only their first words capitalized. For the 2nd point, then it will be very helpful to use the Latin script as English-pronounciation for all titles with letters that are spoken differently than in English, as that's the whole point that I see in this as benefitial to the English-speaking-reader on English-Misplaced Pages, and not readers-speakers of General-Latin-languages Misplaced Pages. But of-ocurse I understand now from your explanation about the current rules for uses that are being followed, still this can be decided to changed to improve. Thanks for your quick reply and for your adding at the article the Montenegrin-script of the word "Igranka" as anothr thing I adressed. אומנות (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorted out the Cypriot song. --] 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good. אומנות (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

nrk have already announced their plans for next year`s selection

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/melodi_grand_prix/1.11002774 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

John Kennedy O'Connor as San Marino commentator

I've removed this information in the commentator section of the article, however an unregistered user has added it back and believes I'm making a mistake by removing it. I've checked the source and I can't find anything to indicate that John Kennedy O'Connor will provide commentary for an online broadcast of the contest by the broadcaster from San Marino. The current source leads to a video where John Kennedy O'Connor speaks about his appointment as the spokesperson for San Marino, but nothing about providing commentary. The source just details that he will be providing reviews of all of the songs online, rather than providing actual broadcast commentary. I've noticed this is also listed on the 2012 contest page, however, there is also no source for that. Perhaps someone can look into this? Pickette (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The translated source says: "His comments as well as videos on the web, are broadcast from Monday to Saturday at 8.00 am and at 13.30 on Digital Terrestrial and at 8.00, 13.30 and 23:50 on the satellite channel." The TV guide shows that they started this week. Thus ruling out a live commentary of the contest a week before it begins. --] 20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pickette is correct about the 2012 Contest article, as it would appear that John Kennedy O'Connor has been added months after the article gained GA status. And most of us will be aware that all references get checked thoroughly by the GA reviewer for accuracy and reliability, before the GA is passed. So I would agree that any mention of Mr Kennedy O'Connor needs to be removed from ESC2012 page. As for this very article, I have found another news article that states he will be the voting spokesperson, although it is unclear as to whether he will also be commentator or just commentating for a presentation show that previews all the songs prior to the contest itself. Wesley♦ 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That is what I'm reading as well. I've actually removed this information from the 2013 article twice now and the first time it had a source that led to a video interview where John Kennedy O'Connor discusses his selection as the voting spokesperson for San Marino and now it has a source that just details that he will provide reviews of all of he entries in some kind of daily preview type program that precedes the contest. Pickette (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today I removed this information for the third time and added in my edit summary that there was a discussion occurring on this talk page. The unregistered user, who is seemingly using different IP addresses, has restored this information again. I'm not sure what to do in this case since the IP user chose to revert my edit rather than come to this discussion, so perhaps someone with more experience can deal with this matter. Pickette (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the information, and asked the IP to come here and discuss. --] 23:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just realised the news articles are available in English. Still nothing on J O'C commenting, and that only Lia Fiorio and Gigi Restivo are. --] 23:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry Pickette, the article has now been semi-protected which expires on 23 May at 23:45 (UTC). So the IP or any IP won't be able to edit this now. I was quite shocked to see the IP accuse you of 3RR, when in fact they had exceeded 4RR, so they should be blocked anyway. Wesley♦ 00:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Pickette, you may need to check if you're an "autoconfirmed user", as the semi-protection may affect your ability to edit this article too. To check your status, click on the "preference" tab at the top of the page, and it should tell you on there. Wesley♦ 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it was bad enough that wikipedia declared me dead, but I'm not prepared to tolerate this "talk" argument being raged publicly in my name and I would appreciate the person who started it deleting it immediately. If anyone wants to know anything about my professional career and my involvement with SMRTV and Eurovision, they can email me privately and I'll happily answer. You can also find me on twitter. This is not the forum I wish to have my professional engagements debated. Please remove. TheRealJKO (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

perhaps the article should mention that there is opening acts for the first time since moscow

i mean in the semi finals of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is something that will get included into the article nearer the time (or shortly after each semi final), as we would know more about them and be able to write a informative prose. Wesley♦ 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Article layout

Is it me, or is the layout on the format section all higgledy-piggledy, compared to the layout for the same section on ESC2012? On the 2012 article there was no separate header for voting (per GA reviewer advice), the layout then went onto semi-allocation draw, graphic design, and finally national host broadcaster. On this article we've seem to have given voting its own header, followed by headers for 'host', 'other segments', 'graphic design', 'ticket sales', 'sponsors', 'semi-final allocation draw', and ending with 'running order'. The "other segments" header may do with being worded more informatively, although I am struggling to think of something more appropriate. What I'd like to suggest is the restructure this entire format section so that it flows better. Any suggestions on how we can do this? Or would everyone be OK if I was to be bold and just go ahead and fix it based on how the 2012 article looks? Wesley♦ 11:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've been bold and done a layout test in one of my sandboxes for people to view, and see the tweaking I've done to the format section. If it looks like a major improvement, then feel free to use it into the article. Wesley♦ 12:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking the same thing and I prefer the version you have made in your sandbox. Pickette (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and implemented the improved layout. If anyone disagrees, then feel free to revert the edit. Wesley♦ 13:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

good afternoon. I'ld like to add Eric Saade to ESC's presenters, since he gonna be one of them, not so important as Petra but he'll interview the singers at green room.

sincerely, 2.83.126.250 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Already done - This information is in the article in the Format section. If you're asking to add that information to the infobox, I think that's a bit misleading and places undue weight on his part in the presentation. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To further enhance what ElHef has stated, Eric Saade's appearance in the green room would only been seen via broadcaster that do not have commercial breaks, such as the BBC. So his insertion into the infobox would be partially inadequate as not every national broadcaster would broadcast Eric's green room section. So therefore Petra is a solo presenter. Wesley♦ 23:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Eurovision articles
• High-importance Eurovision articles
• All WikiProject Eurovision pages
• C-Class Sweden articles
• High-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages