Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanup
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{old RfD|date=29 May 2015|action=delete|result='''delete'''|page=2015 May 29#Future Eurovision Song Contests}}
{{Old RfD|date=29 May 2015|action=delete|result='''delete'''|page=2015 May 29#Future Eurovision Song Contests}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 9: Line 9:
|archive = Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age= |units= 30 days}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|target=/Archive index
Line 15: Line 14:
|leading_zeros=0
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}
{{WikiProject Banner Shell|blpo=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Eurovision|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Eurovision|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=High}}
}}
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
Line 23: Line 23:
{{ITN talk|14 May|2017}}
{{ITN talk|14 May|2017}}
{{Interwiki copy|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2017&type=revision&diff=780368363&oldid=780362805|title=2017 Eurovision Şarkı Yarışması}}
{{Interwiki copy|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2017&type=revision&diff=780368363&oldid=780362805|title=2017 Eurovision Şarkı Yarışması}}
{{notice|{{Graph:PageViews|365}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}}
{{Top 25 Report|May 7 2017 (7th)|May 14 2017 (11th)}}
{{Notice|{{Graph:PageViews|365}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}}

== Russia's withdrawal ==
The article says that Russia withdrew from the contest.<br />But I see people at the Russian Wikipedia say that Russia didn't formally withdraw. I didn't really look too much into this, but as far as I understand, it happened somehow like this:
# Ukraine bans Samoylova from entering.
# Russian First Channel says: "In this case we won't broadcast the 2017 contest."
# EBU proposes a few options but Russian First Channel rejects them all and repeats that since the artist they chose was banned from entering Ukraine and therefore cannot participate the channel won't broadcast the show.
# EBU replies to First Channel: "If you don't broadcast the 2017 contest, Russia won't be able to take part in it."<br />See the official EBU statement here: <ref name="EBU Statement">[https://eurovision.tv/story/russia-unable-to-participate-2017-ebu-statement EBU Statement]</ref>.
That's it. Russia didn't formally withdraw.
For some related discussions and articles, see:
* [[:ru:Википедия:К посредничеству/Украина/Запросы#Евровидение-2017 и участник Seryo93]]
* [[:ru:Россия на «Евровидении-2017»#Запрет на въезд и неучастие России в конкурсе 2017 года]]
--[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 16:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::{{To|Moscow Connection}} Russia did not participate, so a withdrawal of some degree had occurred. The content on Russia-Ukraine during 2017 is only written in brief summary on this article, as there is a more detailed article on their Eurovision/Junior Eurovision relations - [[Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest]]. Our Russian Wikipedia counterparts may not have an article like EN:Wiki has on the relationship between the two nations. But anything in this Eurovision 2017 article should be kept minimal and brief. In-depth content should be addressed at the appropriate article. But you will find Wikipedia across other languages do not follow the same rules. From what I've seen in my 6-year editorial history, English Wikipedia is more strict on its rules. The EBU statement does state that "Russia will no longer be able to take part" which is an informal type of withdrawal. And The Guardian confirmed it as a withdrawal.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ellis-Petersen|first1=Hannah|title=Russian withdrawal throws Eurovision politics into sharp relief|url=https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/apr/14/russian-withdrawal-eurovision-song-contest-politics|publisher=The Guardian|accessdate=3 June 2017|date=14 April 2017}}</ref> So there are a multitude of reliable sources that classify the situation as a withdrawal. Perhaps our Russian Wiki colleagues are not aware of the other sources? <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''[[User:Wesley Wolf|<font color="#110">Wes</font> <font color="#315">Wolf</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wesley Wolf|Talk]]''' </sup></span> 16:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::: {{edit conflict}} The article "[[Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017]]", which is meant to be the most detailed, also says that Russia withdrew. I think, since Russia didn't formally withdraw (as we can see in the official EBU document), we should find some other word to describe what happened.<br />Yes, I agree that a withdrawal of some degree had occurred, but I still think that now the Wikipedia articles aren't formally correct and we should find a better wording. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 16:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::* I must add I personally don't understand why EBU said what it said in its statement<ref name="EBU Statement"/>. Cause it's like:<br />First Channel: "If we can't participate in it, we won't broadcast it."<br />EBU: "If you don't broadcast it, you won't be able to participate in it."<br />But I think they both had their reasons. They have lawyers etc who can advice them. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 17:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{To|Moscow Connection}} and this is the problem that we have. Wee don't have parameters in the infobox for "absent" or "unofficial withdrawal". And if we did, then the infobox will be as long as the article itself, as people will probably want to fill it with all sorts of other junk. And to be fair it would be [[Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest]], followed by [[Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017]], [[Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest]], and finally [[Eurovision Song Contest 2017]] - the order in which the content would belong. Like I said there are a loads of sources that all class Russia as withdrawn, purely because they "pulled out of competing". To pull out, or be absent from, is a form of withdrawal. And that is the generic term which seems to be used, as it removes the complexity of the whole situation. I'd have to look in the talk archives, but I am pretty certain something was agreed about this. Also can we "ref" any links, as this thread does contain the {{tl|Reflist-talk}} for such instances. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''[[User:Wesley Wolf|<font color="#110">Wes</font> <font color="#315">Wolf</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wesley Wolf|Talk]]''' </sup></span> 17:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:::* We shouldn't assume the ifs and buts as to why the EBU said what they did in their statement, as that is encroaching upon [[WP:OR|original thought]] and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis of published sources]]. All we know is that Russia applied to participate. Ukraine banned their singer. The EBU offered solutions. Russia declined the offers and decided not to compete in the end - that is a withdrawal. The EBU stated that Russia were "unable to take part", which despite the wording, is also referring to a withdrawal of sorts. So to avoid complex scenarios, withdrawal is more suitable, as long as there is enough explanation into who it all came about, and the statements issued from all 3 sides (Russia, EBU, Ukraine). <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''[[User:Wesley Wolf|<font color="#110">Wes</font> <font color="#315">Wolf</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wesley Wolf|Talk]]''' </sup></span> 17:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::::* 1. ''[T]hat is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources''<br />— We are on a talk page. Everything you say is also an original thought.<br />2. Unability to take part ≠ withdrawal. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 17:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:::* Well I never expected to be going back to the {{Escyr|2016||2016 contest}} to figure out how this sort of situation is dealt with, but nevertheless I have done so. Romania were classified as "withdrawn" in 2016 even though they did not "officially withdraw" from the contest. Because TVR was in debt with the EBU, they had their membership suspended and as a consequence where "forced to withdraw". I suppose this is the same in this case, as Russia wanted to take part, the Ukrainian law prevented that, the EBU tried their best to resolve the matter, but as a consequence Russia ended up "forced to pull out" (or withdraw depending on how people perceive the context). If we start changing the wording, then the infobox will be incorrect and would not show Russia as "withdrawn". And I'm not sure why English Wikipedia is trying to be brought into line with Russian Wiki? These are two different Wikipedia, with different rules, and different projects. I do not see any policies that show cross-wiki-rules. Maybe our colleagues at Russia Wikipedia are handling the situation incorrectly? <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''[[User:Wesley Wolf|<font color="#110">Wes</font> <font color="#315">Wolf</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wesley Wolf|Talk]]''' </sup></span> 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
::::* I just want to find a better wording for it. Cause I think it's not good that the Wikipedia article is formally incorrect. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 17:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}
I did write {{tq|"that is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources"}} in full and did not miss any letters, so I'm somewhat confused as to why you've written {{tq|"[T]hat is encroaching upon original thought and synthesis of published sources"}} as if to imply I missed a letter!? And I have never disputed this being a talk page, I am aware of that factor. All I meant was we shouldn't look towards including assumptions into the article as ''that'' would be original research. And there is clearly not a better wording for it, as they were absent and force to withdraw because of the situation. It is a withdrawal at the end of the day. Trying to imply it as something completely different will only confuse readers. If we no longer counted this as a withdrawal, how would you handle the content in the infobox? Details would be omitted from it and that would also be "formally incorrect". Keep it simple. It is clear Russia were not at the contest. Sources do use the term withdraw, which covers the [[WP:V]] policy. Just because you personally think it is "formally incorrect" doesn't mean you are right, or wrong for that matter. But personal opinion that contradicts what the sources state is rather [[WP:NPOV|point-of-view pushing]], something which we are [[WP:POINT|not suppose to be doing]]. Let's not get into complex wording and confuse people. If RU:WIKI wish to deal with it all differently, they are welcome to do so at RU:WIKI. This is EN:WIKI - different rules here I'm afraid. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''[[User:Wesley Wolf|<font color="#110">Wes</font> <font color="#315">Wolf</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wesley Wolf|Talk]]''' </sup></span> 18:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Moscow Connection}} Although I may not speak on behalf of Russian Wikipedia, it's probably worth pointing out that Wikipedia and the EBU are different. The EBU must be careful how they phrase everything, as they are obliged to maintain relations with as many countries as possible. Wikipedia, on the other hand, must stick to keeping all content encyclopedic. If this entails antagonizing the subject of an article, so be it.
:For example, supposing a country did not formally declare war against another country, but they marched through their lands with an army and destroy everything in their path, we are obliged to report truth as the events that took place, not what the aggressor or victim said took place. We would call this a war, even if the parties involved said it wasn't.
:As much as I hate getting into semantics, this is a simple case of [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/withdraw#Verb definition]. If Russia did "pull back", then they have withdrawn. We don't need to labour over the statement of the EBU. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 01:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::Russia did not withdraw. Russia simply didn't not agree to two options, both of which would actually fall into the definition of withdrawing / pulling back. (''Pulling back'' with the original plan to bring the performance to Ukraine or ''withdrawing'' the artist they selected. Therefore, no, this isn't a simple case of definition. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
:::I've read the section on their withdrawal, and it seems appropriate. Even if you argued that Russia did not withdraw, then you ''would'' argue that the EBU withdrew Russia's entry. So either way, it is a withdrawal. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
::::I've read this whole conversation and maybe the article should be a little more clear on Russia's participation. Ultimately as the others have mentioned a "withdrawal" did take place in regards to Russia's participation this year regardless if it was their will or not. I've also read the articles in relation to Russia's participation and they do clearly document what happened along with the sources provided. However I think I may have some ideas that may help everyone with Russia's planned participation this year:
::::*Leave the infobox alone, Romania is placed as a "withdrawing country" in 2016 and Russia should be placed there as well in 2017.
::::*Under incidents change "Russia withdrawal" to "Forced Russian withdrawal" this will better reflect the situation as Russia intended to participate but due to circumstances beyond their control their selected artist couldn't take part after she was chosen. To be fair even though the Russian broadcaster rejected the satellite link the Ukrainian government also rejected it as well. So even if Russia accepted that option the Ukrainian government would have blocked it as well. This new title will also be clearer in that Russia never said they "withdrew" but that the EBU considers not broadcasting the contest a withdrawal.
::::*On [[Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017]] in the infobox change "Withdrawn" to "Forced withdrawal" again this wording makes it clear that was outside of Russia's control as the selected artist was banned. This will make it similar to [[Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016]] where that entry says "Disqualified" instead of "Withdrawn" in the page's infobox. Also change the section that is headed "Withdrawal" to "Forced withdrawal"
::::@[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] as the other editors have stated the Russian and English Wikipedias may have different policies and procedures and content from one may not be in the other. In English Wikipedia [[WP:OR|original research]] is not allowed in the article. To clarify what they mean by original research I'm going to highlight another example of difference between the two for Eurovision Song Contest 2017 which is in regards to the United States.
::::*[https://ru.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-2017&oldid=85628310#.D0.9D.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.8F.D0.B2.D1.88.D0.B8.D0.B9.D1.81.D1.8F_.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.B1.D1.8E.D1.82 Russian Wikipedia] (via several translators) says that the United States can enter the competition because [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] is an associate member and can take part in the Contest. This is untrue in several ways; for any associate member to participate they must be extended a special invitation by the EBU. The associate member that receives this kind of invitation is SBS for Australia. No other associate member receives an invitation and even Australia isn't guaranteed an invitation every year like an active member of the EBU. This is a big reason why the United States can't participate.
::::*Also our broadcaster in the States is Logo TV which is owned by [[Viacom]] is not a member of the EBU in any form. If (and I stress "if") the United States ever receives an invitation to participate in Eurovision then the associate member that would receive it would be [[CBS]] which is owned by [[CBS Corporation]]. The reason CBS would get first right of refusal while Logo broadcasts the contest here is because both Viacom and CBS Corporation is owned by [[National Amusements]] and it is very rare for one company to allow another company to show properties it either procedures on its own or licenses from another company. This second reason is an example of [[WP:OR|original research]] as there are no sources mentioning that CBS, ABC or NBC could air the contest in Logo's place if we ever got an invitation and is why the United States is listed as an "EBU non-member" in English Wikipedia. '''[[User:Alucard 16|<font color="#ED9121">♪♫Al</font>]][[User talk:Alucard 16|<font color="#008000">ucard</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Alucard 16|<font color="#0000FF">16♫♪</font>]]''' 06:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{To|Alucard 16}} I couldn't have worded that any better myself. What you wrote is what I was trying to put across, I just couldn't find the right words. Now if it entailed wording on RVG, VDI, Lenux, or RG45's, then that would be a different matter - as that is the stuff my brain is being stuffed with at the minute with all this IT Advanced training course I'm undergoing. LOL. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''[[User:Wesley Wolf|<font color="#110">Wes</font> <font color="#315">Wolf</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Wesley Wolf|Talk]]''' </sup></span> 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== Final results table ==

Although the request was deleted, can the table be corrected so that Portugal and Poland are in the right alphabetical order? Alternatively, can the table please be in voting order as all the tables are from 1957-2015. The consensus on wikipedia is that this should be the case.[[Special:Contributions/216.216.202.69|216.216.202.69]] ([[User talk:216.216.202.69|talk]]) 20:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. Are you talking about the [[Eurovision Song Contest 2017#Participating countries|participating countries table]] or the [[Eurovision Song Contest 2017#Scoreboard|scoreboard table]]? Both of them are in order of draw, not alphabetical, just as it has been for yonks. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 21:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

::For the final scoreboard, scores are listed A-Z. Many have requested that they should be in the order awarded. Starting with Sweden, then Azerbaijan, then San Marino etc etc. This is how the scores are recorded in all wikipedia Eurovision pages from 1957-2015. Regardless, there is currently an error in that Portugal is listed before Poland, so the alphabetical order is not correct. This was requested already, but the entry deleted.[[Special:Contributions/216.216.202.69|216.216.202.69]] ([[User talk:216.216.202.69|talk]]) 22:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:::Now I see what you're saying. As far as I'm aware, {{u|Emreculha}} was the one who made the scoreboard for the final by copying it from the Turkish page. In other words, there is no reason that the scoreboard is in alphabetical order at all, as it is inconsistent with other Eurovision scoreboards on English Wikipedia. Some unlucky soul is going to have to rearrange the entire thing, as well as the one from 2016. Good spotting though. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 23:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

{{od}}

Then Emreculha should be prevented from editing the page as they cannot be relied upon to make accurate, reliable edits. In future, Emreculha should post their requested edits on the talk page and have them either approved or disapproved, with another, trusted editor then making the actual changes to the page. Just like the rest of us. [[Special:Contributions/12.11.80.13|12.11.80.13]] ([[User talk:12.11.80.13|talk]]) 03:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

::::Since the page is protected, it's not possible to make the correction. I also think the results should be listed in voting order. It makes much more sense and brings it in to line with all other wikipedia pages.[[Special:Contributions/67.180.255.113|67.180.255.113]] ([[User talk:67.180.255.113|talk]]) 20:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

:::::I couldnt understand..Why u want protect the page from me?!? I am not a vandal..I am editor in Wiki for 11 years..Please be polite--[[User:Emreculha|Emreculha]] ([[User talk:Emreculha|talk]]) 12:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}

Actually, the page is no longer protected. That [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Eurovision+Song+Contest+2017 expired] a couple of weeks ago. Anyone can make the change. Contrary to the claims of a particular user, we are actually pretty lenient with who is allowed to edit the page. If you want, you can make the edit yourself. Just expect it to take a while. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
:It's interesting to observe that the page was protected to stop anyone adding "erroneous" data to the article. However, this particular table is in fact incorrect - still, despite several editors pointing out the error - as were several earlier versions, which had incorrect scores posted. Thus those who protected the page are the ones making the errors and those prevented from editing are the ones with the correct data, yet are unable to do anything about it. The irony isn't lost. And contrary to the claims of a particular user, we are only trying to ensure accuracy and should not be abused for doing so.[[Special:Contributions/12.11.80.13|12.11.80.13]] ([[User talk:12.11.80.13|talk]]) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

::[[Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#On Wikipedia and the Cabal|There is no cabal]]. A single editor protected the page, namely {{u|Tabercil}}. It may be hard to understand if you haven't been around as long as some editors here, but several pages do suffer severely in a short period of time when a large group of IP editors start making scores of changes which go unchecked. This is extremely frustrating for editors who have been carefully maintaining the article for a long time, as their hard work can be undone within the time frame of an hour. This is why pages are generally protected when they are otherwise likely to be ruined.
::I would avoid using words such as "abuse", especially given that the [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users|standard]] which was required for users to edit the page was an account four-days old with 10 edits. We are all volunteers, and editing Wikipedia is not a privelege. That being said, if you have an edit you would like to make, nobody is stopping you — provided of course that it is constructive. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 04:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Like many, I have watched the warring editors on this page and I have seen editors asking for edits to be made, because they are prevented from doing it themselves, being called "sorry arses" and "losers" amongst other charming epithets. By any measure, that is abuse. I haven't seen you respond anywhere to that editor advising them not to use words such as "sorry arses" and "losers". "Trolls" is another charming word that is often bandied about by a particular editor. As for your comments about the undoing of hard work by editors, that is the challenge of wikipedia. There is even a caveat posted on the wikipedia guidance pages that states that any page can and will be "ruthlessly edited" and thus all editors need to bear that in mind. If you feel so protective of your 'work' and don't like the open nature of wikipedia, I would suggest another, alternative forum is more suitable. Wikipedia is supposed to be open and free to anyone and everyone to make constructive, accurate edits. The undo button is there to correct malicious or erroneous editing. If someone undoes all your hard work, you can undo that undo in a split second, without abusing anybody. I also notice you use the term "we" when responding. Another offensive term. I suspect that if I now started to edit all of the Eurovision wikipedia articles to bring them all into a uniform style, every one of my edits would be undone by a particular editor. Thus I am not going to put in all that hard work just for all that work to be undone. I am sure you understand. The voting table is wrong. It was posted incorrectly. I thought accuracy was the goal. [[Special:Contributions/12.11.80.13|12.11.80.13]] ([[User talk:12.11.80.13|talk]]) 04:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

::::"[[User talk:83.103.212.137|If it quacks like a duck]]..." You seem to have stated multiple things, so I'll address them separately:
::::*{{u|Emreculha}} is not going to be banned from editing this article for not noticing a subtle difference in standards between English and Turkish Wikipedia. That is implausible. They were not being disruptive. I have made many mistakes in my time, just like any other experienced editor. If users were always banned from editing articles when they made mistakes, then Wikipedia wouldn't be half the encyclopedia it is today.
::::*You're speaking about {{u|Wesley Wolf}} again, no doubt. You ought to let the matter drop. I don't condone profanity or insults, but you were clearly harassing him. Besides, this has been discussed to death. It's still not too late to [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]].
::::*Wikipedia protection is there for a reason. When the third pillar speaks of pages being "[[WP:5P3|mercilessly edited]]", this is not a welcome mat for new users to launch a [[blitzkrieg]] against an article. It is warning against [[WP:OWN|article ownership]]. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision|WikiProject Eurovision]] does not own the article, but during high IP traffic, its judgment is prioritized over that of new and inexperienced users. This is not to discourage editing, but to ensure that everybody's time is not spent tracking down and reverting original research and vandalism, which is reasonably difficult when there are ten IP addresses simultaneously editing an article.
::::*Please don't take offense at the word "we". As I pointed out before, [[Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#On Wikipedia and the Cabal|there is no cabal]]. Antagonizing experienced editors by suggesting they have nonconstructive motives is pointless. We want these articles to be to a high standard, just as you do.
::::*Au contraire, I only revert such edits if they are vandalism or disruptive. In fact, I regularly spend huge amounts of time ''welcoming'' new users and thanking them on their talk pages for their contributions. The exception to this is when a user is violating a ban, but this is rare.
::::*Remember that we were all once new editors. When I started editing, {{u|Wesley Wolf}} was extremely helpful and always gave me advice. All I had to do was suck up my pride every now and then, because I trusted in his better judgment. Even now, I approach him for advice on tricky scenarios. If you want to constructively edit Wikipedia, whether you like it or not, you will need to get along with other editors.
::::But anyway, this thread is getting completely off-topic. If you want to reply, please do so at my [[User talk:Tuxipedia|talk page]], not here. The other editor may not appreciate their observation being used to host a debate on Wikipedia editing practices. — '''[[User:Tuxipedia|<font color="black" face="Ubuntu">Tuxipεdia</font>]]<sup><font face="Ubuntu">([[User talk:Tuxipedia|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]])</font></sup>''' 05:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==
Line 116: Line 46:


that is listed on the blu-ray release. please correct the articles related to it.[[Special:Contributions/84.212.111.156|84.212.111.156]] ([[User talk:84.212.111.156|talk]]) 20:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
that is listed on the blu-ray release. please correct the articles related to it.[[Special:Contributions/84.212.111.156|84.212.111.156]] ([[User talk:84.212.111.156|talk]]) 20:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
:You argument should be directed to [[Talk:Kiev/Naming]], basically it's not going to change. --&nbsp;'''[[User:AxG|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#000;">AxG</span>&nbsp;]]<span style="color:#4169E1;">/'''</span>[[User talk:AxG|&nbsp;<span style="color:#000;">✉</span>&nbsp;]] 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

== Pedantic point ==

Was 'The Voice' [[triple meter]] or compound [[duple meter]]? The last true triple meter winner may have been Nocturne. [[User:Aspirex|Aspirex]] ([[User talk:Aspirex|talk]]) 21:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:18, 12 November 2024

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurovision Song Contest 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables

[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks those tables are really hard to understand. Why doesn't every table have the total points which are actually in the table, i.e. the total jury points in the jury table. Instead, in the jury tables one can see the televoting totals and vice versa, which makes for a really clumsy experience, when browsing? Can that be amended in any way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.130.151 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is officially KYIV 2017

[edit]

that is listed on the blu-ray release. please correct the articles related to it.84.212.111.156 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You argument should be directed to Talk:Kiev/Naming, basically it's not going to change. -- AxG / ✉  20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic point

[edit]

Was 'The Voice' triple meter or compound duple meter? The last true triple meter winner may have been Nocturne. Aspirex (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2017&oldid=1256971623"