Talk:Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Eurovision Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ukraine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't get why "Save This World" should be grouped? Especially since there are several rows in between them, it seems pretty arbitrary to me to group those songs only because they happen to be next to one another. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had not noticed the discussion. It just seems to me cleaner with as few repetitions as possible. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 21:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems really arbitrary to me. I haven't been able to find any guidance about grouping cells in tables, but I would only do it if they logically belong together. For example there is a lot of grouping in the list of Eurovision Song Contest host cities because they were deliberately put together like that, not because they happen to be next to one another. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it definitely depends case by case. Though as I said, the fewer the repetitions, the cleaner it looks to me, as long as a table is simple like this one. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

It is not biography article, so having a section on an individual is not ideal. The article should be closed, meaning it should only a single domain. You never mix and match. If the lady is notable, create a seperate article on her, but if she never won or is not notable, and I assume is non-notable then the best you can do is mention her in passing, saying The Ukraine candidate... or whatever and thats it. The references that support her are PR are not secondary. They're simply isn't sufficient numbers there to support that section. The references with icons, smily faces and so on were completly non-standard per the

WP:MOS. They're completely outside what is acceptable for a reference. I could have slimmed the section down and looked for references, and if it was cultural article,for example a museum. I would have done it, but I had 120 articles to review, so I'm not waiting about. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I only just noticed that you're a patroller; I thought you just did it out of the blue. I agree that the artist and song info sections aren't great, but they are the status quo in these articles; it's like this in every article in

Template:Cite instagram says that the |title= parameter should contain the content of the post, and that post does contain emojis. I'm not sure what part of the MOS you're referring to. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If it par for the course, then it probably needs to change. Don't put that emojis reference back in. scope_creep^Talk 21:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the emojis in the reference are really that big of a problem then I guess I can see if it can be formatted differently or something? But I still don't understand why the way a reference is written matters for how well something is sourced? As long as the source exists and is reliable, right? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]