Archives

1: April 2008 – December 2008 2: January 2009 – December 2012 3: January 2013 – December 2015 4: January 2016 – June 2020 5: July 2022 – March 2023 6: April 2023 – present

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

→ Issue 50 ← Headlines Three countries announce representative. Junior Eurovision 2023 won by France.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles	Unassessed articles	Good articles	A-class articles	Featured articles	Number of members
7263	0	178	0	4	108
• HOME • TALK • NEWSDESK • UNSUBSCRIBE • ARCHIVES • • Published by the Eurovision WikiProject •

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had some troubles and still do with health issues and hospitals arrangements the past months, and under the war, though at the first weeks after I reached to you, I kept heavily working on my computer to prepare explanations on several things while taking breaks; as I said before I still felt miss-understandings so worked harder afterwards to try and phrase (on "Word") in addition to 1-2 other stuff I wanted to add. I edit little for war-stuff urgent for me and otherwise keep taking breaks as I sometimes have pains-issues and exhaustion. There's also a current situation on Eurovision subject which is urgent for me, to try and reach another user, that I hope for understanding, before a surgery I need. So just to let you know in the meantime that I still want to talk, with extending your understanding it take some more time, and that regardless I'm sorry I write after few months; I will try to write to you before a surgery or in January if I'll be fine afterwards and by than. אומנות (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I appreciate your edits and rewriting of the ESC 1990 article. Great work! I have one point of debate, however: you deleted one of my contributions:

This was my contribution (August 2023):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_1990&diff=prev&oldid=1171881720

This was your edit deleting it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_1990&diff=prev&oldid=1187987554

In your summary, you gave as a reason “removing unnecessary and non-notable information”.

It is difficult for me to know whether you deemed my contribution either unnecessary or non-notable, or both.

My motivation behind adding it in the first place was that the academic paper by Mari Pajala (which I quote) sees the ESC 1990 as a milestone in the development of ESC television production history. The non-static use of cameras is seen by the author as an element which is an innovative novelty in the ESC as a television production. Maybe my contribution wasn’t clear enough in that respect. I don’t think my contribution was non-notable or unnecessary. I hope we can reach a consensus on this matter. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EurovisionLibrarian: Thanks for reaching out on this, I really appreciate you coming to me about this as I definitely didn't mean for it be to discouraging. That was more directed at some of the information which was more "commentary-like", which was predominantly unsourced and I felt wasn't particularly encyclopaedic in nature. As for your addition around camera angles, potentially this could be readded if it's framed in the right way and there's a cohesion with the rest of the article. I guess the way I was reading it it didn't seem like a major milestone for the contest, maybe I was misremembering some past contests where there were a lot of other sweeping shots, e.g. 1989 with the big sweeping shots from the back of the auditorium, but I understand a bit better now the point you were trying to raise around it essentially being the first use of steadicams in the contest, although I guess this isn't specified exactly in the source. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve checked the videos of 1989 and 1990. Well, yes, there are camera movements from the perspective of the back of the auditorium but the angle or perspective shown still is the one that a spectator from the back of the auditorium would have. In contrast, the 1990 edition brings camera movements onto the stage, movements turning around the artists so to show them also from behind and from the side etc. I guess the most striking example is the beginning of the Spanish entry (this must have been done with a hand-held camera / steadicam), but similar movements are also present in the UK’s entry and Yugoslavia. I could also see movements from above (camera on a crane?) but this feature is also present in earlier contests.

Here’s what Pajala writes:

"[page 192]:

[...] the production has been continuously adapted to the changing media environment. This shows, for instance, in the contest’s approach to television aesthetics. [... about the early years:] The programme was basically a concert filmed by a few cameras and transmitted by television [...]

[then continuing on page 193, on the 1980s:]

Music Television and the rise of the music video changed the audiovisual aesthetics of popular music. The ESC needed to adapt in this new environment. The 1990 ESC in Zagreb exemplifies these developments. Although the contest was filmed in a concert hall, the televised performances were not as tied to the realist space of the concert hall as before. The stage was low, allowing cameras to move to and from the stage and circle among the performers. Numerous camera angles and moving cameras allowed television viewers to see the performers from angles that were not available for the audience on site. Two large video walls provided a second, simultaneous view of the performers. [...] In these ways the contest departed from the “realist” space of the contest hall [“concert hall” is probably intended] to produce audiovisual performances that fit contemporary understandings of televisuality, making use of the possibilities of up-to date technology."

I don't know how you think about it. Certainly, Pajala doesn't write explicitly words like "milestone" or "innovation", her term "exemplifies" even weakens the contrast between 1990 and previous editions. At the same time, the features she writes about are new featues that are not present to this degree in previous editions.

If we add it again, I would like to see it included in the “Production” section, I think it fits best there. It is essentially about television production. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EurovisionLibrarian: I definitely get your point around 1990 being a watershed moment in terms of production aesthetics, and that move away from it being a kinda static production to one that was a lot more dynamic. And I agree, it would warrant inclusion within the "Production" section. It's a tricky one though because I suppose there had also been a lot of tiny changes over the course of the late 80s and early 90s so it's difficult to pinpoint one exact moment where it all changed from a production POV. Like there are certainly a lot of modern innovations that also took place in 1987 and 1988, but yeah comparing those contests certainly 1990 seems to be the first occasion where that kinda dynamism was introduced to the contest. I'm happy enough if you want to readd the paragraph, or a reworking of it to maybe flesh it out some more; maybe there are some additional refs you can find that can add some more context? I may tweak it slightly just FYI, since I want to make sure the entire section flows and has a cohesion to it as I push to get this to GA status. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks. I've tried to reformulate a little bit and added it alongside more context and a second ref, which aims to make understand the significance for the transition into the "modern era" which features more "live music video"-like performances and subsequently more dynamic camera movements. I've put it at the end of the Production section for the moment, feel free to rewrite and move it around. Since you have done many edits on the article, you have a better overview of cohesion and structure. --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sims2aholic8. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrej Babić is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Babić until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know there's some stylistic capitalisation on the Eurovision Song Contest 1974 article. Some obscure Swedish band called ABBA. You might want to revert that right too. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psycho-Krillin: Well given that ABBA stands for Agnetha, Björn, Benny and Anni-Frid, it is not a stylisation but an acronym. Maybe next time you might actually want to read the Manual of Style links being referred to, which explicitly state that acronyms are a different situation, before you come and be snarky on someone's talk page just because they're trying to be helpful and point out the consistent MoS methods which are or should be applied across all Wikipedia articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I was wondering what the best way to reference the spokesperson for the Irish jury in 1988 would be? Since one of the host's Pat Kenny makes reference that the voice was that of John Skehan during the coverage. However I understand YouTube is not considered a valid source, how would one maybe expand on this? For information - Kenny makes the reference around 3 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR4d3NkVFKM&t=136s.

Thanks very much Mrluke485 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reaching out! I've re-added this information based on what you have presented and used a footnote to explain that Kenny confirmed this during the broadcast, with a reference to the broadcast itself without linking to a YouTube clip or other copyright-breaking source. Sims2aholic8 (talk) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Sims2aholic8 for collecting at least 25 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I heard the complaints and we could go for a color scheme that's a bit lighter and more pleasing and still accessible — IмSтevan ^talk 13:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just raised this point on the main talk page as well. I don't necessarily mind either way, my original thought was that the brighter scheme was a bit too garish, but if there's a strong pull one way or the other we can work with the lighter colours. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]