Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Spain

Avis28, you edited the revision were you colored Malta in the map. Wesley will fix it. 193.219.190.168 (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if I were asked if it would be OK to fix it, rather than demand and expect me to do so. I do have a busy schedule in real life. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I could fix it myself but I don't see what I should fix? Malta is colored green because they already chose their entry. So what's the problem? --Avis28 (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

Barei (Spanish representative) stated today morning in RTVE that her song and performance both will be fully English without any Spanish lyrics. 37.14.53.63 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bosnian song presentation date

Users have been adding the date 27 February 2016 as the day the Bosnian song will be presented. This is completely unconfirmed at this point. The addition is stemming from an article published by an unreliable source (oikotimes), which has assumed the song will be presented on that day based on an appearance the performers will be making at a gathering in Sweden. Pickette (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus' song

Although we know the name of their song (Alter Ego), we haven't yet been presented with any content of the song itself. I feel like we should add in brackets after the song name "(TBD 22nd February)" which is when it will be officially presented to us. This would be useful for me and many others who use this wikipedia page as a guide to when new songs will be released. ThatJosh (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@ThatJosh: this is not feasible, sorry. Firstly, TBD means "to be decided". So how can we say a song is to be decided on such a date, when the song title is already known? It makes no sense. Secondly, this article is about the contest itself. So if a source provides information on a song title before it is officially presented, then we are following the correct procedure by noting the title of the song. The presentation date is more relevant to the song title article and the country article. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Poland

Poland will also have national selections, thus it should be changed from "TBA" to "TBD". Dawidwyrzyk (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Countries with a bye"?

Doesn't that usually mean that they've been sent home? I think we need a re-wording there, in the Semi Finals voting map thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatJosh (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A bye means that they automatically pass through to the next round. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@ThatJosh: see Bye (sports) for further clarification to what Jjj1238 has pointed out. Wes Mouse ✒ 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I've also seen the phrase "x was given a bye" meaning that they were sent home, I believe it can also be used for when an act has been diqualified or something of the sort. I have changed the message to say "Pre-qualified countries also voting in Semi x" because I think that term is more specific and is actually used by the ESC community as well as the official contest itself more often, making it a more appropriate description. I hope this is okay. ThatJosh (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@ThatJosh: it all boils down to contextual meaning. If a sentence reads countries with a bye then 99.9% of the global population will understand that it means a country that proceeds directly to the next stage. To say that 99.9% of the global population will misinterpret it as meaning a country is saying "goodbye" is assuming that the entire human race is dumb/stupid/retarded, or whatever expression one would choose to use. If you have seen the phrase "X was given a bye", then that is clear as the sky is blue in meaning that X proceeded to the next round without having to pre-qualify from the previous. It does not mean that a country was sent home. So the fact that you are taking a simple word out of context is not of our concern. English can be a difficult language if not understood. Some words (also known as Homonyms and homographs) have many different meanings even if the word is spelt the same (see List of true homonyms and List of English homographs), whilst some are spelt differently but sound the same (for example: wear, where, were) which are known as Homophones (which and witch; are another example). Seeing as the contest is a "sport" in some degree, then the term "bye" is clearly obvious in its meaning and contextual usage. Isn't the English language wonderful and complex? Wes Mouse ✒ 12:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

New voting system

With this new voting system, will we be adding a separate breakdown of jury points and televote points to the main participant tables or just keep one total score there and add the breakdown in a separate table? Perhaps this should be discussed so it doesn't become a potential issue later. Pickette (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say we will require separate scoretable breakdowns, especially as the full set of results will be published by the EBU. Maybe having them collapsed would keep things less clutter-some? Wes Mouse ✒ 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Pickette (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

On another note, how is this actually new? The voting system was changed to include jury votes 3 years ago. Grez868 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Language of Ljubav je

Original article says: The song is going to be sung in the language of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Deen says the same on Facebook. This is definitely confirmed in the official BHRT press conference. Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are equal and they are the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnian mainly used by Bosniaks, this year's representatives are not only Bosniaks and there will be people of all nations on the scene. Some other reliable sources (1, 2) says the lyrics will be in the language of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Aca Srbin (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2016 (UCT)

Can I propose that the language of Ljubav je be changed to Serbo-Croatian? This can allow for the fact that not all representatives are Bosniaks and Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian, as co-languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are just standardised varieties of Serbo-Croatian? Bearnard O'Riain. (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Why complicate it? We have a source saying the song will be performed in Bosnian! Calm down on nationalism. If Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin can be separate languages, then I don't see why Bosnian can't be too. — Tom(T2ME) 11:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, we have reliable sources who says language of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most importantly, the official statement of BHRT and Deen's Facebook status. There is no problem with separate Bosnian language. It should be assumed that the song is in Bosnian when Bosniaks represents B&H, but we dont have only Bosniaks now. Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are equal and they are the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina!

Serbo-Croatian is not an official language. It is sometimes used universal name Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) for language of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. [1] [2]

My proposals are:

Country Language Artist Song English translation
 Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian Dalal & Deen feat. Ana Rucner & Jala "Ljubav je" (Љубав је) Love is
 Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian [1] Dalal & Deen feat. Ana Rucner & Jala "Ljubav je" (Љубав је) Love is

--Aca Srbin (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2016 (UCT)

  • OK folks! Calm it down a little and sit back. We all know by now that we must be following core policies such as WP:V, and WP:CITE, when we are adding content to articles. Also pay attention and avoid synthesis of published material, which is to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If there are conflicting sources all stating a different language, then we must use the primary source which in this case would be eurovision.tv go off what they publish. Saves on all the source warring then. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Primary source is BHRT and they says at the press conference the song is going to be sung in the language of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, we have Deen's statement. There is no conflicting sources, most of them mistakenly translated the original article. There is lack of knowledge of the languages ​​in B&H. Many people think that Bosnian is the only official language, but it is only used by Bosniaks. That is the cause of the wrong translation and various information. Some other reliable sources (1, 2) are properly cited. --Aca Srbin (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UCT)
What does eurovision.tv state in regards to the language? If they haven't mentioned a language explicitly then I'm inclined to agree that the language should be changed to one of the above proposals based on the sources provided. Pickette (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Using the first example in the table above is not permitted due to the WP:EASTEREGG guidelines in how pipelinks are handled. So if we're going to direct to an article on Serbo-Croatian language, then use that term, do not wrap it up with a different term. And to be fair, Aca Srbin, as this is an article on Eurovision, then the primary source would be eurovision.tv, and not bhrt.ba. The thing I was getting at with WP:SYNTH, is tha twe should not be combining multiple sources in order to imply something completely different. Use one source to verify one thing. Quite simple is that! Wes Mouse ✒ 12:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Eurovision.tv states Bosnian language in this article: [3]. That should clear things up. Pickette (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That settles it then. A primary source that confirms the language as being Bosnian. Thanks Pickette for finding that evidence. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I explained what was going on. These are not independent sources. All they translated the original article, including Paul Jordan for eurovision.tv. There was multiple mistakes in translation because lack of knowledge of the languages ​​in B&H. How is it possible that Paul Jordan knows better than BHRT and performers of the song? This is totally disrespect and belittling their statements about own song. You know very well that it can happen mistakes like this. In this situation the primary sources should be the original article, BHRT press conference and Deen's statement. Also, we have some other reliable sources who are properly cited. There is so much evidence! Do what you want, this is against the rules, against the will of broadcasters that sent the song and against performers's statement. --Aca Srbin (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2016 (UCT)

Multiple mistakes? Says who? Only you, Aca Srbin say there are multiple mistakes. That I'm afraid is original research. A source is a source; and it verifies what it tells us and what we write into an article. Using personal opinion doesn't count here, per WP:NPOV. So by using the source in which Pickette found does not go against any rules, it provides information on the language choice, and the source is primary as it is owned by the EBU - who I very much doubt would be publishing "mistakes". They are a multi-lingual company who get their information from their broadcasting members. So on that basis, we must treat the information as being correct. Using your personal opinion however, does break the fundamental rules of original research and WP:POINT. Case closed! Wes Mouse ✒ 14:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of performers of the song and broadcasters that sent the song. Ok, you don't want to respect their statement and the right to choose. In the English speaking world (even reliable sources) often mistakenly use the term Bosnian language as language of of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it is the language used by Bosniaks. BHRT and performers are now accurately pointed out that the song is going to be sung in the language of citizens of B&H and that there will be people of all nations on the scene. Their original statements were in my mother tongue and I'm trying to help translate properly. Some sources have reported exactly as they said: (1, 2). I'm really sorry for having wasted your time. I just do my best to convey properly. --Aca Srbin (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2016 (UCT)
Use whatever was used in previous Bosnian entries. After all they are all very much the same language. --Killuminator (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Officialy: ”Language of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina”

Page protect

Is there a way we can have that page protection added back? It's a free-for-all with all of these IP edits. Pickette (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Many IPs are doing a much better service to Wikipedia than yourself. Why don't you better choose an absurd text like Yanko Yanev and try to correct it, instead of hurting IPs' (other people's) feelings? I hope your favourite gets 2 or three votes in the end of the day. This is for being rude to me. Your bad influence... --141.196.217.66 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
IP user, you need to refrain from making personal attacks, and it shows a heavy level of unprofessionalism. Pickette has been a very helpful user of Wikipedia and we are grateful for their edits. I would support this article being protected as it seems IP users are constantly adding unsourced/untrue/irrelevant information that needs to be removed. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I generally do. And I always make helpful edits. Stay with your pal. I wish you happiness. --141.196.217.66 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I have carefully reviewed the edit history of the page and concluded that semi-protection is justified. This article has already been protected a number of times and the likelihood is that the level of interest in the contest is only going to increase as we get closer to it happening, so I've set the protection to last six months – which will take it through until a good while after the contest is over. I considered implementing pending changes instead. However, I ruled it out as the edit rate is too high to make it manageable and a significant proportion of the edits by newly registered/unregistered users are either vandalism or otherwise non-productive. CT Cooper · talk 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia

Australia to confirm artist on March 3. http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/eurovision/article/2016/02/25/australias-2016-eurovision-song-contest-artist-set-be-revealed

Added with source. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Greek song's title: Utopian Land Source: http://ogaegreece.com/archives/33490 (official) 2A02:214D:801B:D800:85AB:547B:F81C:A21F (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to the article with the source. Pickette (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

returning artists have to be updated

the norwegian participant won mgp nordic as lead singer of the blacksheeps.84.212.73.96 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I dont think MGP Nordic is cnsidered a Eurovision event. I might be wrong but Lilla Melodifestivalen and its likes in the other Scandinavian countries are the pre-seelection.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

sounds like there could be a few words in sami in the norwegian song

i noticed some words that sounded like a different language than english. agnete is known to have sami in her songs so that is likely to be the language.84.212.73.96 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"J'ai cherché" translation

Ever since Amir Haddad was announced as France's choice for the contest on 29 February, the English translation of the song title ("J'ai cherché") has been changed numerous times.
The official ESC website translates the title as "I have been looking for", which is also the translation used in the English chorus..[1].
The translation has been changed to the translation from the song's article "I searched" (see J'ai cherché for more).
I'm not a French speaker so I can't give a translation of the phrase myself, but I changed it to equal the translation from the official ESC website and song lyrics.
If it can be kept that way, that would be awesome. Bearnard O'Riain. (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We should come to a consensus on this because people are constantly changing it. Pickette (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The title is in the passé composé ("I [blank]ed" in English) so in my opinion it should be "I searched", as it's the more casual translation of the title. Also, the song's English chorus should not be used as a means to translate the title as songs are not translated directly from one language to another in songs. I don't feel strongly one way or the other but this would be my two cents. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"to look" is translated to "regarder", as well. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We should not use an English line from a bilingual song as means of determining the English translation of the French song title. Merely because, song writers tend to use a more poetic rhyming style, so the technical translation "I searched" may not have worked for the song writer, and they opted for "I have been looking for" just for that lyrical flow to a song. "I have been looking for" when translated into French would read "Je cherchais" (see Google translation). The column itself should use the correct English translation, as has been the case for many years now on these articles. So if the correct translation of "J'ai cherché" becomes "I searched" (see translation), then that would be the correct translation, regardless of the fact the song lyrics uses "I have been looking for" in its song. One other way around this would be to use a footnote and make the general reader aware that the song lyrics uses the English phrase "I have been looking for", even through the correct translation would be "I have searched". Wes Mouse ✒ 20:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Woops, didn't see it, thanks for the notice. Slasher-fun (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
As a native French speaker, "look for" is to me the right translation here: he sings he was "looking for something he lost" (meaning of life, love, gratitude...), I don't think "searched" would be a good translation here. Regarding the tense, the French phrase uses passé composé, which matches present perfect. Slasher-fun (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Please keep the thread in time-line view, makes life simpler and the conversation flow much smoothly. Anyway, to comment on the view that Slasher-fun has made... to "look" and to "search" are one and the same. When you search for something, you are using your eyes, and therefore looking. As pointed out above, there are translations which show two different spellings: "Je cherchais" which means "I have been looking for"; and "J'ai cherché" which translates as "I sought/searched". Just because the English lyrics within the song uses the phrase "I have been looking for" does not mean that is the correct translation in this case. When a songwriter writes lyrics, they look for words/phrases that rhyme and thus provide a better and more coherent flow to the composition of the lyrical context. Using the correct translation "I searched" may not have been a suitable choice for the songwriter, and they opted for "I have been looking for" so that the song lyrics becomes more flowing to the casual ear. Over the years on Eurovision articles, especially with songs that are multilingual, we have never used a line written in English as means to determine the English phrase to be used in the English translation column. What has been the practice for the last 11 years of WikiProject Eurovision is that the common translation is used, with a footnote to provide clarity and to differentiate between the correct translation and the translation used within the song's lyrics. Therefore, as there is evidence to show the translation as being "I searched", then that would be the phrase to use in the translation column; and then a footnote explaining that the song lyrics uses the phrase "I have been looking for" as means to simplify the song even though that phrase would literally translate as "Je cherchais". Wes Mouse ✒ 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • OK seeing as we have used 4lyrics.com in the past and they are on the project's reliable sources list, then feel free to check this out. J'ai cherché translates as "I searched". As the lyrics alone show, the first line reads "J’ai cherché un sens à mon existence" and translates as "I searched for a meaning to my existence". Reading the lyrics as if being that person within them, you see that things are being "searched" for, and then into the chorus they have found that person who made them feel strong and its that other person who they realise they have been looking for. Wes Mouse ✒ 15:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"Chercher" [4], "Rechercher" [5], "Chershais" [6] etc', as verbs deriving from the same core-word, all apply to the same primarily-interchangeable English meaning words: "seeking", "looking", "searching". As can be seen at the links, it primarily shows (top frame): "look for"-"chercher", "looking"-cherchais" and "search"-"rechercher", while all still showing below the frame other wording options: "look for", "search", "seek" alongside other French verbs: "chercher" and "rechercher" (again first link example). So "J'ai cherche" is one such time and body tense, as been said about passé compose: as in "looked" vs. "was looking" vs. "have been looking" and/or "searched" vs. "was searching", etc'.
Some more examples: this site applies "J'ai cherché" as either "looked for", "searched" or "sought" in different places [7] (highlighted in yellow). The French-English Google translation of "J'ai cherché" produce "I sought" [8] while additional words as "J'ai cherché dans" produce "I searched" [9] and "J'ai cherché dans la..." turns to "I looked in the..." [10]. In regards to "regarder" - just as there is "look/see" and "look for/search" then regarder may apply mainly to use the eyes and "chercher" also contain the word with the meaning of "looking for/searching". This varied yet joint dictionary findings which puts "looking for" equivalent to other discussed words, along with the current sourced-meaning of "looking for" on the primary ESC website [11] (as well this wording expressed through the song's English main-chorus part), leaves this "I have been looking" wording as the one which should be followed. אומנות (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that doesn't make it any better nor any worse; but complicates the entire French/English translation to a new level. As noted above the reliable website 4lyrics translates the first 2 verses which contains the words J'ai cherché as meaning I searched. Even by copy/paste the first verse into google translator produces the same meaning. However, Eurovision.tv loosely translates the words as meaning I have been looking for based on the fact they are also the same words used in the English chorus of the song. So to conclude on the findings, perhaps a footnote to explain that the word has two different meanings will prevent any further edit warring on the English translation? After all we are suppose to be preventing wars whilst also building an encyclopaedia. At least that is the philosophy that we all hope to achieve. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I've done a test using a footnote to see how it would look. Another option would be to write (I have been looking for) in the song column itself seeing as it is a bilingual song; but without it being pipe-linked. I'm just throwing in options in the hope to find a peaceful solution and a cyber-paracetamol for the headache that all this has caused. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The varied translations I provided, in addition to your basic findings which also grasped on Google Translate, contributes precisely per simplifying easy follow of the official ESC site as presenting a valid English title, in parallel to try staying away from the complications of efforts speculating what the artist intended; if the official site just loosely translated it based on the chorus; and complication of 2-translations footnote. That is aside contributing general findings to ease other such optional-future translation cases, and providing another view to progress consensus so people will comment precisely to avoid edit wars. "4lyrics" simply translates the verse without a title and its home page shows they receive translations-mails from any contributors. We don't know if they also used translate engine for the whole verse and therefore got the one specific result you got. The official site is the only one currently providing English title and should take precedence, similarly as discussed for Poland's song below. It's best to keep on the article stable "I searched" as there is no rush and to avoid ongoing changes. If there are no further comments after few days, then a footnote is more inevitable with more reason to place it. אומנות (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
My findings were not basic, to be fair. When the song title was first known, I translated it myself as "I searched", especially as I am relatively fluent in French (I think having a GCSE level A in French from high school, as well as an A-level in the same subject counts for something like that anyway). What may be deemed as "basic findings" are merely further evidence to provide insight into the translation and various mediums that also translate cherché as "searched" and/or "sought". English context would be a strong benefactor too, as a person would not say "I sought for a meaning to my existence", because the word sought would change to searched on a contextual basis.
Further findings, if we're to trust the sister project, Wiktionary, shows that the word sought is a verb used as a past tense and past participle of the word "seek". It also shows the word searched as the verb used as a past tense and past participle of the word "searched". According to Wiktionary the word cherché is the past tense and past participle of the word chercher, which means to look/seek. Wiktionary also shows cherchais as being an imperfect indicative of the same word "chercher". Which brings us back to the findings above, J'ai cherchais if translated as "I'm looking for", would be an imperfect terminology; and we are not about imperfection, but about being as close to perfection as possible. So that would rule out "looking for", because of the French imperfect indicative of the word "cherchais". That in mind only leaves the one remaining translating meaning of "searched", which is closely connected to "cherché" based on Wiktionary findings. The current use of a footnote does seem to have reduced edit warring over this matter, and that is the main goal here. Or at least one would hope the aim is to reduce warring whilst providing an explanation into the confusion over the several translated meanings that one French word has.
If we are saying that the translation is "looking for" then that is not past tense (cherché), but is in fact present tense (chercher), as you would be currently "looking", compared to the past tense which would be to have "looked" for something.The English verse doesn't say "I have looked for..." in a past tense context, the verse reads "I have been looking for" which is a present tense. The only words that use a past tense participle would be "sought" or "searched", which are the same two words that translate from cherché. And going off the contextual values between, "I sought for..." and "I searched for..." is what we need to determine and figure out which saying sounds correct in terms of the past tense participle. Wes Mouse ✒ 15:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If you were truly fluent in French, you would know that French tenses do not correspond one-to-one with English tenses. The passé composé "J'ai cherché" can be translated into "I searched/sought" or "I looked for" (English simple past), or "I did search" or "I did look for" (English emphatic past), or "I was searching" or "I was looking for" (English past progressive), or "I have searched" or "I have looked for" (English present perfect), or "I have been searching" or "I have been looking for" (English present perfect progressive). Passé composé could take any of those meanings depending on the context. The context we have is this song, which clearly has lyrics in both English and French which should have saved everyone the trouble of translating "J'ai cherché" in the first place.
The past progressive is where "Je cherchais" comes in, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Your argument that the passé composé is strictly in the past is also invalid, as "avoir" conjugates in the present form in French for the passé composé. (J'ai, tu as, il/elle a, etc etc.) Tense and time do not always correspond.
Arguments based on Google Translate are also invalid, as Google Translate doesn't understand nuance, and you can achieve the correct result you want by clicking on the word and seeing the options that show up.
Also, wiktionary clearly states that chercher translates to both "to look for" or "to seek", in that order. To argue that "search" is better than "look for" is false. The footnote is unnecessary and unwieldy and goes against the principle of simplicity and conciseness. 2605:E000:87C2:A00:182D:CF6B:D9B:442E (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. Forgot to log in. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 19:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Gerbear: please do not be condescending or attacking in comment either. ""If you were truly fluent in French, you would know that French tenses do not correspond one-to-one with English tenses"" is attack speak in the fact that you have aimed something at someone in the context. You also state that "[my] argument that the passé composé is strictly in the past is also invalid". Why put words into my mouth? Oh sorry, I forgot, I am the evil one that everyone loves to throw an attack at and make feel unworthy. I never even mentioned passé composé. It is very clear that I am engaging in a peaceful debate, as I too would love to discover what would be seen as the translation that should be used. I'd have thought you would have recognised that with the fact I have given opinion, evidence, suggestions, and potential resolutions into how this matter may be resolved swiftly and peacefully. I know that English can be complexed, but so can any other language, one would assume. The point of the matter is that we provide the correct translation, and not assume that a line in the English chorus may be the translated text. To do so would be lame and pure laziness. Perhaps we should "cherchais" an opinion from the translation team if that will draw ultimate closure to this. Wes Mouse ✒ 23:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Then ask the translation team if there is no agreement. And perhaps everyone can be a little less condescending when replying to others. Pickette (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the translation team is going to be the only way to resolve this headache of a multiple-meaning translation. Partially due to how the context should/would be perceived and understood. I would like to point out that despite the fact I have mentioned "searched", I have not always reverted the article to show "searched". Either way would be fine, I guess, as long as we can settle to what version should be kept, and all-for-one agree that that translated phrase would be the one to keep and be able to point out to others who do/may keep changing it, about this very discussion (which I would assume would become concrete consensus once we all discover the correct translated phrase). I'll be taking a day off editing on 11 March, due to personal reasons. First anniversary of a relative's death and all, so I do think it is of my own interest that I take a one-day sabbatical. But in the meantime, I shall inform the translation team aware of this thread and hope that some sort of resolution and understanding can be sought. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Whether we like the way Mr. Gerbear expresses himself or not, he is correct. In the everyday colloquial use of French by native speakers, past tenses do not necessarily correspond directly with our English past tenses. The French tend to economise with their spoken grammar more than we do with English, while their written language is far more formal than ours. Thus they look for (sorry about the pun) short cuts when speaking, allowing the actual tense to inferred by context rather than by correct grammar. With songs and poetry it's always difficult to make an accurate translation - what is required, linguistic accuracy, or something that rhymes? One should not lose sight, however, of the original poet or songwriter's semantics. I often cite the example of Nena's German sobg 99 Luftballons which in German simply means 99 balloons but which has to be translated in the English lyrics as '99 Red Balloons' for the metre to match the music.

The bottom line is, at Wikipedia we report what others say - we do not make up our own definitions of things, so whether we like it or not and whether the tense is grammatically accurate or not we must use the the translation tat the mainstream music industry is using. As a pure anecdote, the French also use chercher for 'to fetch', as in je vais chercher du pain for I'm just popping down to the baker's to get a loaf which always kept me highly amused as a young child partially growing up in France. I had these vivid images in my mind of people scurrying around everywhere in the streets looking in doorways and under pared cars etc, foe an errant piece of bread. They also go chercher les enfants à l'àcole = 'pick the kids up from school', or Tu viens me chercher à la gare? = 'will you come and pick me up at the station?' (notice the lack of the formal interrogative form in the French) rather than 'please wander around in the crowds on the platform to see if you can find me!' It's not enough to be simply be a translator, one has to be fully imbibed with both cultures; oh, and please, please, please leave Google translator out of the equation - for serious purposes that would be just looking for trouble. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wesley, that most definitely was not intended as an attack, and I apologize if it came across that way. You mentioned your expertise in French to bolster your argument, so it was worth a mention in mine. Please assume good faith. I literally haven't been on Wikipedia actively for ages, and the first thing I get is someone not assuming good faith. And please stop making appeals to emotion when discussing topics on here, especially when the discussion gets heated. It's incredibly inappropriate.
Obviously, I had given my own evidence on why the original title should stand, but it seems like that was all ignored. I did not put words in your mouth: you are, once again, not assuming good faith. Even if you didn't say "passé composé", you mentioned cherché being a past participle, and how as the title is in the past tense, that it would be inappropriate for it to be translated into English as a present tense. That was the argument that I was giving evidence contrary to, that's all.
Have a good break. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 03:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have only a very elementary understanding of the French language – my mother tongue is English; my second language is German, but I'm far from fluent even in that. However, on the principles, I agree with Kudpung and Mr. Gerbear. In particular, I think Kudpung is spot on when he says The bottom line is, at Wikipedia we report what others say - we do not make up our own definitions of things, so whether we like it or not and whether the tense is grammatically accurate or not we must use the the translation tat the mainstream music industry is using. CT Cooper · talk 17:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been a week since anyone said anything about this issue, and as there is obvious consensus in keeping the translation "I've been looking for," I'm going to be bold now and edit the article to reflect this. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 18:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow finally! I gave up given I seemed like to be the only one in favour of "I've been looking for", thanks @Mr. Gerbear: for insisting :) Slasher-fun (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=amir_haddad_is_the_french_choice_for_stockholm

Polish song title

Pickette with no offence to yourself, but writing an edit summary upon a second revert telling someone to "take it to the talk page" is not appropriate. One should have brought it here first, rather than re-revert - you are familiar with WP:BRD by now, I would have expected. Nevertheless, the song title does cause a problem. The edit notice does explicitly state to use British English at all times. If the song title is using an alternative spelling, then this is something new and no guidelines provides any solution around it. Perhaps using footnotes to explain about the spelling? Wes Mouse ✒ 23:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this can be solved simply. What is the song called on eurovision.tv? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"Color of Your Life". It's the reason why I reverted the change as we always follow spelling for artist names and song titles as they appear in Eurovision.tv. Pickette (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The song title on Eurovision.tv uses the American spelling "color". However, there is the manual of style, WP:ENGVAR (which is what I was trying to point out to you @Pickette:), that does state to be consistent with the national variety of English used in articles - which the page edit notice does state to use British English throughout, which would mean the spelling becoming "colour". I'm not sure if WP:ART1VAR would be a viable loop-hole for us in order to get around this rather strange, yet first time that a song title has used American English rather than British English. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the specific rules are, but I'd assume a song title's wording would override specific rules to editors on what dialect to write in. If a song had its title as "January 1, 2016" (for example), we wouldn't change it to "1 January 2016" on Wikipedia just to keep it in line with writing guidelines. Right? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Wesley, I'm aware that the article uses British English, however, it seems odd that this requirement for the page can force a spelling change of a title. Also, I just want to clarify that I never intended to edit war or cause a fight over this. I apologize if you thought I was. Pickette (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jjj1238 and Pickette: and this is what has caused all the confusion. Because we have never had a situation like this before on any Eurovision article, in which a song title uses a different English variant other than British/European English. WP:ENGVAR does state to use the national variant. The page edit notice shows that the article itself is written in British English and provides examples, including colour/color. So using the word "color" when the page notice states "colour" would confuse the hell out of anyone. That is why I suggested perhaps using a footnote to provide clarity and prevent confusion. (I'm getting frustrated with the edit conflicts) Wes Mouse ✒ 00:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This is confusing. Since it's a title of a work, I think there should be an exception. If not, then we should use a footnote, but that seems rather silly to me. Too bad this song won the national final. I was already disappointed that it won and now it's causing problems here. Pickette (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is always something new every year, Pickette, that puts us to the challenge and tests Wikipedia's guidelines to the limit. that said, I think a solution so that removes the conflict between the two guides would be to have the title as "Color of Your Life" which allows us to comply with WP:ART1VAR, and add a footnote to explain the song title uses the American spelling of "colour", which would then comply with WP:ENGVAR. I think that might work? Wes Mouse ✒ 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The titles of works and proper names should always be spelt as they are in the original source as per WP:ARTCON, which appears to indicate that the song title should be spelt as "Color of Your Life". I think a footnote would be over-the-top unless multiple reliable sources disagree on the correct spelling. CT Cooper · talk 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The name of the song is "Color Of Your Life", having it appear as "Colour Of Your Life" goes against what the sources are saying. It's almost a kin to what happens with quotes which are usually kept as written in their original form despite ENGVAR. A hidden {{Sic}} couple be placed. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
So WP:ARTCON would override WP:ENGVAR, am I right in thinking that, CT Cooper? @AxG: I like that idea of using {{Sic}}, looks like that would work and resolve this confusion and prevent any future edit changes for those eager to switch between "color" and "colour". After all, aren't we as Wikipians suppose to help towards the prevention of edit warring, rather than leaving opportunity open to those who are edit war fanatics? Wes Mouse ✒ 00:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Eurovoix uses "Colour of Your Life" as the spelling for the song title. Wes Mouse ✒ 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ESCToday also use the spelling "colour". So yes, we have conflicting spellings from multiple sources. So we do need to act and decide whether or not a footnote will help provide clarity to all of this. Wes Mouse ✒ 01:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:ARTCON is a sub-section of WP:ENGVAR and a clarification thereof, so in short: yes. I would be opposed to the use of sic as it would look awkward and sic is intended to highlight unambiguous grammar and spelling errors in quotations - a variation in the national variety of English used doesn't qualify. The use of sic can also be perceived as offensive so should be used with caution anyway. On Eurovoix/ESCToday, they probably have their own editorial practices, so I'm going to go back slightly on my original statement and say that the primary source (i.e. the EBU) should take precedence. I think that's what WP:ARTCON means when it says Quote these as given in the source. If the Polish broadcaster, the singer etc. also use the British spelling, then that's a different matter. CT Cooper · talk 01:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
On a sidenote, I think the use of hidden notes would be effective on preventing edit warring. WP:ENGVAR is primarily an editorial issue and shouldn't really concern readers. CT Cooper · talk 03:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The above has been implemented and appears to have stuck. I'm therefore going to presume that resolves the issue. CT Cooper · talk 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

About titles of songs not yet released...

Some entries on the list refer to songs not yet released, but only their titles are already known, I suggest to add a footnote that reads something like "not yet released", and/or their date of release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.59.138 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • No footnotes are required, especially ones that use a crystal ball term such as "not yet released", and previously written information has since been removed. The song titles have citations next to each of them to provide verification that they are the representing song. That in itself is within compliance with Wikipedia core policies. Any such information on the release date, however, would be more appropriate on their respective country articles. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea with my suggestion is that, when reading the titles list, we can tell a song that can be listened already (on Youtube, or other platforms) from one that cannot be found yet... (please read the entry "Cyprus' song" on this page, the user express the same core idea) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.59.138 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO no, song release dates are usually found in the song's article, it's not relevant here. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK, does it mean that if the title of a to-be-released song is UNKNOWN, the release date is relevant, but if it is KNOWN, that date is not important?, I don´t understand that. The point is, the song HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET, regardless of whether the title is known or not...

IP User, you are just not getting it are you? The column is for song titles. If a song has not been chosen yet, but a date is known when it will be chosen, then we use TBA (to be announced) or TBD (to be decided). However if a song is known, then we write the song title down. Most of the songs listed will not even be released onto CD yet. Your proposed idea makes it come across as us informing people when a song is set to be released to CD, and that information is irrelevant here. The article is about the Song Contest, not about when a CD is scheduled to be released. The title may be known because there are published reliable source that verify the song title. It does not matter if the song has not yet been released on YouTube or other platforms. That information is more suitable on the respective song title articles. For example, we know the title of the Greek entry. If that song is not yet released on YouTube, then that is of no concern for this article. The fact that we have published sources that confirm the song's title is of concern and we are able to verify the title by method of a citation, which are used. Now just drop it and move on as you are not going to be getting anywhere with this anytime soon. Wes Mouse ✒ 08:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2017

The preliminary dates for Eurovision 2017 have been published by the EBU. The article is creation protected and will require an administrator to remove such protection before we are able to proceed. @CT Cooper: are you able to assist with this request, or would it be feasible to wait until nearer the 2016 contest has begun? Wes Mouse ✒ 15:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If a date has been set atleast provisionally I see no reason as to why it should not be ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I set the date of expiry based on previous article creation dates, as generally there was nothing to say about a future contest until just before the previous one had started. However, if practices at the EBU have changed and consensus has changed as a result, them I'm happy to unprotect the page. My personal opinion is that we now have enough to create a bare bones article and we're only a month-and-a bit short of the protection expiry anyway. Does anyone else have an opinion? CT Cooper · talk 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If it is due to expire in a few weeks time, then I don't mind waiting for that to run its course. At least by then we should have even more information to build an article that is more than just a skeletal structure, such as some countries who may have expressed 2017 participation etc. Wes Mouse ✒ 08:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Too late, it has already been done. Someone couldn't wait. Wes Mouse ✒ 08:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it seems someone created the article at another title then overrode the protection when an admin moved the article to its correct location. Never mind, what is done is done. CT Cooper · talk 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

Lovewawe (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Album song lengths

I would like to propose the removal of all song lengths from the album section in this article until there is a reliable source that can back up the album lengths. This article currently presents inaccurate information as these lengths are a reflection of various other releases (some not even Eurovision edits of the songs). It is best to wait and present the actual information rather than just pasting times from various other releases which may not even match to the version of the song that will be on this particular album. Pickette (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

All of the albums in the past have not always included the 3-minute Eurovision version of a song. There have been times that a longer version has been included, or other versions that were not performed on the Eurovision stage. For example, in 2013, the album featured the Italian entry entirely in Italian, whilst at Eurovision itself it was performed in English and Italian. The Common Linnets song at Eurovision was the 3-minute version, yet on the compilation album it was the longer 3:35 version. Don't forget that it is Universal Music that produce the compilation album, and they only use the longer version rather than a Eurovision edit, unless of course the only version is the Eurovision edit. As all of these releases have song articles, which also include the song length, then routine WP:CALC permits for that data to be used. iTunes has the same length data as is used on this album, although iTunes has proven to be difficult to use as a citation, because of pop-ups, and the fact when their citation links are click upon, it open up in iStore, which people will need to have iTunes software installed on their devices in order to view the content. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
We don't know the song lengths for this album and there is no reliable source to back up any of this information. Making assumptions based on other releases seems incredibly wrong in my opinion. In particular, you've added a time length for Serbia that corresponds to their music video, which features a large silent gap for a title. Anyway, using WP:CALC requires consensus so I'd like more feedback on the matter from other users and if they agree then there shouldn't be an issue. @SGriffin94:, @Jjj1238:, @NAXAlc:, @Gianluca91:, @Edvis3692:, @AxG:, @ThePhantomKid012:. Pickette (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting you cite Calm After the Storm - my copy is only 3:07. I have noticed discrepancies like this between pressings before, I know there are at least 2 different version of Norway's 2012 entry floating around. Food for thought. Chewy5000 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chewy5000: there's also two versions of Estonia 2002 album in circulation too. One shows "Estonia 2002" as the album cover, the other shows "Tallinn 2002". @Pickette: WP:CALC doesn't require consensus, per se. On calculations that are clearly obvious, then no consensus is required. It is only required on complex calculations, as has been noted in the past. Very intrigued as to why you have only pinged certain people to participate? Especially as three that you have pinged are known to be problematic, and one is currently blocked. If a broader consensus is what you seek, then wouldn't that require input from as member project members as possible (including the other 78 you didn't name), and not just the ones you have named? I'll ping @BabbaQ, CT Cooper, and Fort esc: just to add to your list, Pickette. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a clear calculation by any means since we don't have the song lengths for this album. You've pulled various song lengths from various different releases (none relevant to this album) and provided absolutely no sources. And I pinged users who have been the most active in editing this article based on the stats for this page. There was nothing devious about it if that's what you're trying to imply with your comments about me having left out other project members. Also, SGriffin94 has commented on this matter, but left their comment on my talk page; they agree with removing the song lengths until official information is released. Pickette (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Pickette: I wasn't trying to imply any form of deviation, I was merely intrigued as to why you only pinged a few people after you you said you would like feedback from other users. Was just curious as to how and why only those names were plucked out of thin air, so-to-speak. Can't remember if Edvis has a COI issue, and one of the others are blocked for disruptive editing including unsourced material - which is what this topic is primarily about. I am confused as to what you are implying that I have "pulled various song lengths from various different releases"? If you're referring to the 2013 and 2014 albums, I was only using those as examples of how the compilations album doesn't always follow the songs performed at the contest itself. Universal (as they always do when compiling the "Now That's What I Call Music!" series, use the CD single release on their compilation albums. So if that release is a 3:00 version, then they use that; if the version is longer, they use that instead. Not sure why Universal Music do that method, and to be fair it is not of my concern either. However, a lot of the 2016 songs have been released as CD singles already, so the lengths are already known, as is already documented on their respective song title articles. Therefore, that time data is permissible to be used here. If there is a broad consensus of dubious doubt to some of the tracks that have yet to be released as a CD single, then by all means we need to discuss and reach a compromise as to how we would handle those. If that means omitting listings that have not yet been released as a CD single, and keeping listed the ones which have (based on their articles) then sobeit. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, we should just stick to official sources. Therefore, when the CD will come out and the songs' lenghts will be known, we can report them in the article. Just don't use things such as Eurovoix or Wiwibloggs, thank you. Gianluca91 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gianluca91: please stop with your absurd demands for us to stop using Eurovoix and Wiwbloggs. Your preferred favouritism towards only using ESCToday is starting to get monotonous. We use and will continue to use a wide variety of websites, whether you like it or not. That is the core policy when it comes to using reliable sources on Wikipedia. The number of times, Gianluca, that you have demanded we only use ESCToday is starting to make me suspicious that you are working for them, which would certainly go against WP:PAID if you are. We had a similar scenario over JESC articles, in which an editor from ESC+Plus demanded we only use their website as a source for writing our articles. And that ended nasty, as it was escalated high up the Wikipedia chain and the website was contacted by email and the Wikipedian indefinitely blocked. Wes Mouse ✒ 15:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Wesley Mouse: here. And also, it seems quite obvious to me that Gianluca91 is associated with Esctoday. What action to be taken about that matter is up to you.BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't work for ESCToday and it's easily demonstrable, lmao, this accusation is really laughable and ridiculous. The reality of the facts is that many of the pages related to Eurovision (pages of singers, songs, etc.) are flooded with Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix as sources. Now THIS is really suspicious. And by the way, I don't say that you necessarily have to use ESCToday as a source, you can just use Eurovision.tv, that's my opinion about the topic of the album song lenghts (but it should be done for everything, imo), and I'm giving it since I've been tagged, therefore I assumed that you were interested in hearing it, instead of throwing annoying accusations at me. Gianluca91 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I pinged you here since you were listed as one of the most frequent editors of this particular page. Anyway, this isn't really a discussion to debate the reliability of certain sources. In regards to this album, we lack a reliable source for the song lengths. We don't know what versions or edits of the songs will end up being on the album and it's better to wait for this information to be released rather than make assumptions and plug in numbers from various other releases, music videos and what not. Pickette (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pickette: I have tagged the relevant segments with {{Disputed inline}} so that others may also come here and participate in this discussion. We also need to remember that this is regarding a compilation album. A compilation album comprises tracks which are compiled from other recordings, usually previously released, but sometimes unreleased. The tracks may be from one or several performers; if from several performers there may be a theme, topic or genre which links the tracks. When the tracks are by the same recording artist, the album may be referred to as a retrospective album. Compilation albums may employ traditional product bundling strategies. For multi-artist compilations (which in this case the album is of such category), the royalties are usually pro-rated. In most cases, each artist's per-record royalty rate (typically 12–14% in 1999) is divided by the number of artists on the album. However, some record companies opt to simplify the equation and pay a rounded-off rate, either as a percentage or as a set amount, regardless of the total number of artists on the record. When a compilation album includes a track from a different record company, the royalties are split between the artist and the original record company.
  • Therefore, none of the Eurovision artists are going to record an exclusive version of their song specifically for the sole inclusion of this album. Because if they did, they'd have produced an "exclusive" and have the rights to a larger portion of the royalty monies; and that would not go down well with the other artists; and would easily result in a legal battle between the music company and the artist(s). That is why the data already contained on song articles which have already had their CDs released are permitted to have that time length included on this album, purely for the fact we already know the information - which does not constitute as original research, but merely simple calculation. And for the record, @Gianluca91: I am not the only one to have concerns over your personal desires for this project to only use ESCtoday and Eurovision.tv for citation purposes. So you assumption of accusation, is flawed I'm afraid. Please consider familiarising yourself with WP:PSTS and WP:RS; we are suppose to rely on independent third-party sources, Eurovoix and all the others are third-party from Eurovision.tv. Wes Mouse ✒ 22:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the Eurovision album contains the final versions of the Eurovision songs which each delegation submitted to the EBU and these can vary from any existing releases that may be floating around. This has happened in the past as well. In addition, there are several song articles that do not contain any information or sources for song length so your argument there is weak. Pickette (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually Pickette you are incorrect there. A compilation album does not contain the final version. Most if not all of the final versions are submitted to the EBU after their CD release. A compilation album only ever uses the CD release version, not the "new" version submitted to the EBU. That is how a music company works, I'm afraid. Please read Compilation album (if you haven't already done so), that clearly explains all what I have said about how a music company compiles such albums - and is verified with sources. Fact is fact, in black and white. The same method used on this article, is the same as I have done on the others over the years, and have I been wrong? Nope, the time lengths have been right and based on the data contained on their respective articles. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • However, if it is going to stop the toys being thrown out the cage, and the rallying of "allies"; then just make all the lengths 0:00. And then when it turns out that I was right all along, I will be at hand to dish out the humble pie for all to nibble on. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Wesley, you're actually misinformed unfortunately. This information all went public last year with the release of the long form of the rules of the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 by SVT: [12] Within the week of the heads of delegation meeting that took place in March, delegations were required to hand in all final materials for their entry. Some get granted extensions (like Malta and Bulgaria this year) but all final audio files are required to be submitted. Any changes beyond that point are subject to a fee. The compilation contains all the final versions of the entries as delivered in March and the purpose of the fee is to prevent the broadcaster from creating discrepancies between the songs when they are performed in the contest and how they appear on the products the EBU releases. Before you start citing differences between compilation versions of the song and the final performance versions of the song from past years, let me repeat that all changes after the March head of delegations meeting are subject to a fee which some are willing to pay. The songs that appear on the compilation album are intended to be the absolute final versions of the songs and some of them vary from previously available versions that have been released. The German song, for instance, will appear as a three minute version once we get a source for this compilation album because that is the final Eurovision edit. I counted twelve song articles that lack sourced song lengths on their respective article, which is troubling if you haven't noticed that as you purport to have used those articles to compile these numbers. Pickette (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It is better to err on the side of caution in my opinion and if we're not certain how things will appear in the end, let's wait for the information to become available from a reliable source. Pickette (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pickette: as a compromise, I have placed "TBC" (to be confirmed) on all of the lengths for now. Once a source is published that provides information on the times, then the article can be updated accordingly. I think that is as fair of a compromise as we're going to achieve. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Reordering certain subsections for chronology/coherence

I'm interested in reordering subsections in /* Format */ and /* Participating countries */ so that the article fits more coherently and in a better chronological order. I'd appreciate feedback on the following (just two!) suggestions:

/* Format */

  • Moving /* Presenters */ above /* New voting system */ and /* Other Eurovision events */ as the presenters of the contest were announced before the voting system was changed i.e. December x February.

/* Participating countries */

  • Moving /* Semi-final allocation draw */ to this section as it relates directly to the participating countries and it acts as a step between the announcement in November that 43 countries will participate and the actual contest itself.

Bearnard O'Riain. (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bearnard O'Riain.: I'd wait personally. These articles end up being nominated for good article classification shortly after the contest has concluded. At which stage an experienced editor will look into such formatting. Although, the format as currently used is one that was agreed by project consensus a few years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8#RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by year articles and resulted in the creation of formatting guides and skeleton articles to be used as a template guidance. Besides, such discussion of this nature is better of taking place at the project talk page, as the impact would not only be on this 2016 article, but all the other contest articles covered by the project too. Regards, Wes Mouse ✒ 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Presentation of the OGAE vote "result"

Could you please make it clear these are not results, but partial. At the moment Russia is in gold position after, what, 4 "countries" have voted out of 40? I have wider concerns about the section, but I think the onus is on the users who want this included to make it ABSOLUTELY explicit that these "results" are not final, as right now they can be taken as such on a casual read. It's using speculative results of a poll, before the poll is complete. I don't think just adding a current banner to the section, without more explanation covers this adequately. Personally I think there's a case to say this material certainly shouldn't be presented with gold, silver, bronze until finalised, and possibly even at all until finalised.Lacunae (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lacunae: this section has always been presented in the same way for the last few years. There have been no confusion as to the fact the results are ongoing, as the prose itself stipulates that factor. The gold, silver, bronze, merely highlights the current 1st, 2nd, 3rd positions. Normally in the past the {{current}} template is added, which I had forgotten to do when the poll began. That in itself explains the poll is ongoing and the results are not finalised. However, I have made some adjustments, to take into account your concerns, and hope that they have addressed such matters. The method in which you took made it look untidy and expanding a column width in such an unsightly manner. If a note was necessary, then it could have easily been added above or below the table; but not nested within the table itself. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if adding a collapsible table which will then be positioned to the right of the results table - similar to how the spilt voting results are displayed for the main contest pages - would be beneficial to show the order that the OGAE clubs have voted, and thus show the results are incomplete. And maybe perhaps have that table show who each club gave their 12 points to? The citation link to the poll document will easily verify such content, should it be decided to include the data. (I've included an example above. The columns may require some work as I'm not sure the choice of wording is presentable). Wes Mouse ✒ 09:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: I've done two layout/formatting tests in my sandbox for viewing. Feel free to share your opinions here, if you wish. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not see an issue with presenting the OGEA results as they come in. I think that 99% of everyone reading the article are smart enough to realize that it is a process with voting during an extended period of time.BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do we have a different, secondary/tertiary source for the OGAE Results that also establishes notability/verifiability? Everything cited here is a primary source, which, as we all know, should be avoided. I'm really doubting that it merits inclusion to such detail. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
ESCToday also publish the results. Would you prefer that section of article to be cluttered with 45 individual sources from ESCToday all citing the results, compared to one source from OGAE that does the job a lot more easier and neater. I get the impression that one just doesn't like OGAE whatsoever, especially after the last thrashed out debate over the organisation. Wes Mouse ✒ 05:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having that detailed 12 point table for the OGAE vote. Covering the top 5 is enough for this article. Pickette (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the table as I think it satisfied the description listed at WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Pickette (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
OK then @Pickette: if such information satisfies WP:NOTSTATSBOOK in your eyes, then so would the 12 point tables that are also included to summarise the main contest results. Might as well remove those too. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree on both views of excessive reference with further tables to individual OGAE clubs and with that seems to reach NOTSTATSBOOK. However I also see a WP:WEIGHT issue with the "top 5" table. As was discussed in the past on prose-generalizing of OGAE-combined votes (such as only mentioning winner on country's articles), I want to refer again to the top 5 which was created to function as a smaller highlight table: Dedicated Eurovision news websites naturally present OGAE votes and ESCToday for example does so with "current top 5 status" in the spirit of "coming in" clubs votes. And while the encyclopedic table factually presents "top 5" and makes clear all countries were scored, it makes a notion of insignificant final 6th-lower places compared to some sort of "special recognition" for 2nd-5th places. I want to raise again a prosed-suggestion which allows us to wholly reflect OGAE voting neutrally on one hand yet in a very summarized way which avoids highlighting each rank and inflating, therefore seems to avoid putting too much weigh. Also, the main contest results determine the actual contest's results and as being determined by millions of people and entertainment industry experts, they are on a different notability level, and personally I always saw it as excessive to even put 12-points tables or alternatively the full-scores statistics for the main results; so let alone any further individual OGAE votes.
My suggestion is to write the OGAE voting mainly via groups of 5: "After all the clubs votes had been cast, x-country won with y points compared to x with y points at 2nd place, x, x and x were positioned in 3nd-5th place respectively, x and x... in 6th-10th... in 11th-15th... and x in last place." Notice the option to add top 2 places points to show winner margin, similarly to "List of Eurovision winners" featured article, also last place country bares significance to the other side of "least favorite". I may raise a full phrased example on the project page, but now at least wanted to express this issue as well. אומנות (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@אומנות: that idea looks promising. Would it be possible to provide an example using the 2015 OGAE Poll results, just to give a better idea how it would be presented. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually find the 12 point tables for the actual ESC results excessive as well but at least those results are directly related to the topic whereas OGAE results are extraneous to the actual ESC 2016 results. By the way, we should discuss how to handle those for the upcoming contest since it's bound to get messy with the change in the voting system. Also, if there are changes being discussed for the OGAE section, I would suggest mentioning only the winner in the prose and then having a collapsed table with the full result. Pickette (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pickette: I too must agree on the fact that the new voting system is going to cause some mess with the 12 points summary; and it is probably best to omit such information from 2016 onwards. I also like the idea you have proposed in regards to the OGAE poll. I can see that working impeccably. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I started yesterday to shape a suggestion before the further comments, with also rephrasing OGAE introduction and just today had time to finalize it. I posted it (with few options marks for footnotes) on the ESC project talk page; I personally prefer footnotes to a hidden list which will show all points and as there a bunch of other hidden lists, and thought of suggesting footnotes already yesterday from thinking others may find a written ranking-groups prose to still be excessive. Please see at the project talk page. אומנות (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who worked on this, it's now much more clear as to the status of the ongoing OGAE results.Lacunae (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2016/Archive_6&oldid=719397675"