Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Australia debut, first appearance, and/or guest (inconsistency)

In the last edit of article (4 June 2015, 16:45), user Brandmeister explained his contribution saying that Australia was guest, not EBU member, and because of that he changed Forty countries participated in the contest, with Australia making its first appearance into Forty countries participated in the contest, with Australia making a guest appearance. However, this is not consistent with infobox data which says debuting countries include Australia, what directly implicates first appearance... --Obsuser (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely one can't refute that it was the first appearance by Australia? Nor can one claim that Australia is part of the EBU. What seems to be in dispute is whether Australia might ever make another appearance. And of course, no one-can yet know for sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, Australia should not be classified as debuting country but as guest one. This is because even if it makes another appearance, it will not become part of the EBU (and contest, generally). If it even does so, the Eurovision will not be Eurovision any more, and the competition will lose its meaning. Australia is not debuting contestant; it was just a guest introduced for no good reason. --Obsuser (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the word debut suggests more there will be another appearance? Have any European countries only yet made their debut in the final? Australia was also different in that it did not compete in a semi final. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The "first appearance" wording is confusing, as it may imply that Australia became a regular Eurovision contestant. I propose removing Australia from the infobox, mention in the lead and further clarifications in the article's body would suffice IMO. Brandmeistertalk 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with that proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added "as a guest" to Australia in the infobox. Alternatively, it could be something like "none (Australia as a guest)", etc, or with an explanatory note. Brandmeistertalk 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone could argue that Australia didn't make its debut appearance in 2015. Sure, it may not return, but just because it may only have one participation doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the infobox (do we also exclude Morocco?). I also would not support an explanatory note, as the whole situation is explained further down the page. –
talk
) 03:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
From what I see, Australia could have returned in case of win, which didn't happen. So no return in 2016 and likely in subsequent years, unless new invitation appears. Brandmeistertalk 07:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the infobox does show in the debut line that Australia is a "guest", thus adding explanation they are a "guest" and not a regular participant. Secondly, the EBU did say that if Australia won in 2015, that they would be allowed to participate again in 2016. Thirdly, it has been reported that the EBU are looking into allowing Australia to become a "regular" participant, despite the geographical location. Fourthly, despite the "Euro" in Eurovision, have we forgotten that Morocco (Africa) took part, Israel (Asia) takes part, Lebanon (Asia) nearly took part. This has been an unorthodox and surprise twist to the Eurovision, and the infobox was never designed to take into account of there ever being a "guest" nation. So we either modify the template so that it has a "guest nation" field - especially now that the EBU have said they would consider future guest nations; or we leave Australia in the "debut" with the (guest) notation, but then on the 2016 article in the withdrawn field show as "Australia (2015 guest)" to cover our asses.

T@lk
23:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And what @

T@lk
00:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening Act (Final)

When the woman played the violin in the beginning, there was a picture of a man on the back of the stage (just before the screen was removed and the ORF-Radio-orchestra was revealed). Who is that man? David1776 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@David1776: That was Udo Jürgens, Austria's last artist to win the contest in 1966 who died last December. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sortable table

Table about candidate cities/venues should not be sortable because its part Failed bids gets sorted too, what we don't need... Can someone exclude Failed bids from being sorted, or I will change the code from sortable wikitable to simple wikitable... It is also case with other Eurovision Song Contest related pages. --Obsuser (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

T@lk 19:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening act

In the part where opening act is mentioned (in the article's infobox), is it correctly written Semi-final 1 and Final? And can anybody resolve my previous question, please? --Obsuser (talk

) 19:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@
T@lk
 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@
Wesley Mouse: Actually, I was thinking about whether it is correct or not Final itself (bolded in my prev. comment), and should it be written there Semi-final 2 or something, but I've checked out and it's OK. :) Obsuser (talk
) 20:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

In the infobox, please change the director's name from Kathrin Zechner to Kurt Pongratz (as according to IMDB[1] and the official Eurovision credits [2]). Mthowells200130 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done.
✒
21:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs

) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from nominator

Thanks. Looking forward to this. Although there were two other Eurovision articles on GA nomination that are also in the outstanding backlog (over 5 months old).

✒
13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @
    Wesley Mouse: Sure, I was just pretty busy over the weekend. I'll try to review as many articles today and tomorrow as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk
    ) 07:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you,
    ✒
    09:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Review

    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a (prose): b (
      lists
      )      :
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a (
      reliable sources): c (OR
      ):
    3. It is broad in its coverage.
      a (
      focused
      )      :
    4. It follows the
      neutral point of view
      policy      .
      Fair representation without bias:
    5. It is stable.
      No edit wars, etc.:
    6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
      a (images are tagged and non-free content have
      suitable captions
      )      :
    7. Overall:
      Pass/Fail:

    This is a very thorough article on the 2015 ESC, but still a number of things need to be sorted out. I have added a number of maintanance tags that need to be taken care of. The rest is listed here:

    • Lead: A tense voting process does not sound very NPOV to me, you should try and find a different wording here.
    • Location: In general, the first paragraph should be moved to the end of the section, since there it does not resolve the bidding process to the fact that Vienna won.
    • Bidding city table: I do not really see what sources the notes come from...
    • Inclusive traffic lights: You need to introduce the fact that the Song Contest is also just called "Eurovision" for short or give the full name.
    • Graphic design: You need to decide wether to give the motto in italics or not, both versions are present here.
    • Presenters: The fact they all speak French needs a source.
    • Presenters: Maybe you can give a short overview over who those persons are?
    • ESC needs to be introduced as a abbreviation as well.
    • I would recommend to move the result tables out of the "Participants" section and into a new "Results" section. The scoreboard can then be a sub-section of that.
    • Result tables: The places and points don't have sources.
    • Same goes for the jury results in the semi-finals.
    • Marcel Bezençon Awards: How was decided who gets these awards?
    • Official album: Track listing, running time, label and genre all need a source.
    • There seems to be a problem with ref #4 to Volksblatt, the connection times out. Maybe that is just because of server problems on their end, but you should have a look at that.
    • Images: There are several good photos on Commons for the event, you should use at least two of them in the article. One of the winner definitely!

    That's about it. Good job so far! Seven days to take care of the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    @
    ✒
     06:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Seven days is simply the standard period. If you need more time, feel free to do so!
Wesley Mouse
: I saw some work was done since we last wrote here. I was unsure if that is all that is going to be done? A few replies to the points you raised:

  • I still fail to find the points written in the "Notes" section of the bidding table in the four sources you mention. Also, those inline citations should go directly behind the information.
  • Marcel Bezençon Awards: If the information is in the source, you can write it in the article. It is Wikipedia's policy that readers should not be forced to click further to find information.
  • As for the album, Template:Infobox album states that "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment".
  • The Volksblatt source still fails to load for me. I don't know what's wrong there...

I'll be on a wikibreak due to being out of the country for the next couple of days and check back next Monday. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No edits made by the nominator since my last comments. Other edits have been made that are not sourced. I am therefore forced to fail this review now. Feel free to nominate again when the issues are adressed. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@
✒
 09:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear
Wesley Mouse, all you told me was that you'd be moving on 9/25, so I did not know that you would be without internet for 20 days after that. As I said, feel free to nominate the article again, another review shouldn't take long, the article is almost there. Zwerg Nase (talk
) 09:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Common sense,
✒
12:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2015/Archive_7&oldid=1074317577"