User talk:Sims2aholic8

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

"Apopse as vrethume" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Apopse as vrethume has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Apopse as vrethume until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Aspro Mavro" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Aspro Mavro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 6 § Aspro Mavro until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting minor languages in Eurovision participation overview.

[edit]

I added them when I was working on a project on language in ESC. I considered them needed as I needed the full language makeup of every ESC song and I think those on similar projects such as how common a language is in Eurovision songs and others who wish to understand the full makeup for a song would benefit from the explanatory footnotes that are ignorable for those that do not need them. Song lyrics including those for songs that competed in ESC also tend to be relatively small compared to other texts so individual words and phrases are more important relative to the whole text on average. Please tell me why you are doing this. RobustVessel265 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobustVessel265: I will refer you to a discussion we had as a WikiProject in February/March 2024, where there was agreed consensus that only the main languages of an entry should be included within participant tables. In many cases adding in these footnotes, which had existed prior to this discussion, was fraught for being majority original research, i.e. there were no references provided to account for these snippets. In some cases it can also be very unclear which language exactly should be listed, given then prevalence of loanwords and linguistic similarities. As an example I will pose to you here, if you saw "amor" in a song, literally just the word with no other context around it, and the rest of the song lyrics are in a language where this word is not native, e.g. English, it would be incredibly difficult to tell what language this word is meant to represent without literally being told by a writer or singer on the song (the Wiktionary article on the word has over 20 different languages listed). Yes it can be clear from a historical or cultural perspective that it is most likely only one of these options, but at the same time that is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. There are a wide array of reliable sources out there backing up the majority languages used in each song, but this is not the case for minority languages for many songs. This is why from a consistency perspective the decision was made to remove all footnotes listing small instances of phrases, words or snippets in other languages that do not make up the bulk of the song. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about if there is a reference by the artists and/or singers of the songs and the footnotes that are present for languages such as in Croatia 2024.? RobustVessel265 (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That still fails to address the consistency point I mentioned. If we do it for one then we should be doing it for all, and if we can't do it for every single entry then we should be doing it for none. Obviously I can't be everywhere at once, so your Croatian example above I have now removed as per the WikiProject consensus. If you dislike this and want to raise the question again then feel free, however my position on this has not changed and I still believe we should only be listing main languages without footnotes for minor phrasing in other languages. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One problem I see this causing is that is makes it easy for humans to think that the song contains only that language/s and no others and potentially spread out that misinformation when using the pages as a source. If minor languages must be excluded then I propose that it is made clear on the table that the minor languages are excluded, maybe written as "Language[a]" to prevent said misinformation from spreading. RobustVessel265 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Excludes single words and phrases" RobustVessel265 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RobustVessel265: I personally do not believe there is a need for what you suggest in the tables, and I don't believe we need to be providing a blanket statement to state that there may or may not be other words or phrases in other languages. It's too granular a level of detail to be calling out, and I don't believe there is a need or a want for it, and I think by adding in a note like this it creates more questions than it answers. That's just my opinion though, feel free to raise it within the WikiProject if you want to get other opinions on this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 1973

[edit]

Yes we can. I just found it too repetitive that the first two sentences consecutively stated that the event was held in Luxembourg. I tried to make both leads consistent with what the 1972 one says and who staged the event, and tried to find a wording reusable in any case. It was a test :). Ferclopedio (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate that. There is only two mentions of the country name in the lead (as well as any adjectives as part of the broadcaster name), so I personally don't see an issue with the current structure. Also, just FYI, I had noticed with the way you had phrased it on 1972/1973 it actually ended up becoming a sentence fragment, as there was no clear subject of the sentence. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also like this structure of the lead much better. But I have my concerns with that second sentence, when reading the whole paragraph. It's not the appearance of the country name that seems repetitive to me, it's the repetition of the location of the event itself in the first two sentences consecutively what I find repetitive. Also, I'm bothered by the "the event was staged" (in 1972)/"the contest was held" (in 1973) piece. I mean, we are saying that the EBU and the BBC/CLT organised the party, but right after we say that "it was staged/held in xxx" , like if it was staged/held by someone else. I find ambiguous "organised by xxx" and "it was held in xxx" written one after the other, when it was the BBC/CLT who staged/held the party, and we don't say it clearly.
To put everything in another way: we say in the first sentence the "what", the "when", and the "where"; and we say in the second sentence the "who" and the "why". I find repetitive to put the "where" again in the second sentence between the "who" and the "why". I think the second sentence should be left exclusively to the organisers/stagers and their reasons.
Maybe I left the subject out, and I was hesitating between using "which" or "who". How about the second sentence like this?:
1972: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster the ... (BBC), who staged the event after the winning broadcaster of the ..."
1973: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (CLT), who staged the event following its victory at the..."
1983: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (BR) on behalf of the ARD, who staged the event following its victory at the..."
I find something like these more explanatory, more usable, and more consistent in all cases, and less repetitive with the first sentence. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not reading into it what you're reading into it. I think it's pretty clear that the broadcasters are the ones organising the event even with the current wording in the lead, and the second part is just reiterating the country name for clarity.
Personally I have a bit of an issue when there are too many pronouns used within a sentence, particularly when the subject hasn't been well established yet. Taking your examples above, I fear "its victory" here could be too ambiguous, especially if the reader is not familiar with how the ESC is organised; i.e. is it referring to the EBU or to the BBC/CLT/BR? In contrast if you have the country name right before it's then very clear what "its victory" is referring to? Maybe there can be a bit of rewording to remove some of the duplication of "the contest/event" from certain sentences within the lead, but I'm wary of trying to condense it too much and would then end up making it too difficult to easily understand for an ESC novice. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to add ambiguity either, but rather try to express it as clearly as possible. "its victory" being in the singular refers only to the latter; if it was referring to both it would be plural ("their victory"). In addition, we say "host broadcaster" and "staged" in a row, which makes it clearer who it was. To clarify further, we can add the name of the country after "victory", such as "for Luxembourg" or "representing Luxembourg", and we can even link it to the country in year article; with this, the name of the country would not be the location (avoiding repetition) but who won the previous year:
1973: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (CLT), who staged the event following its victory for Luxembourg at the 1972 contest with the song "Après toi" by Vicky Leandros."
1973: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (CLT), who staged the event following its victory at the 1972 contest for Luxembourg with the song "Après toi" by Vicky Leandros."
1973: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (CLT), who staged the event following its victory at the 1972 contest with the song "Après toi" by Vicky Leandros for Luxembourg."
The "for" could be "representing", and the italics are the links. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK that makes more sense, thank you. Of the options you suggested, personally I think the first one you listed (country-year-song) works best, although the second one (year-county-song) isn't bad either. For me I'd like to avoid the last one (year-song-country) as I prefer ending the sentence with the previous year's winner, rather than sandwiching it between year and country. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make even more sense if, as we have the sentence now, we dropped the "following its victory" and just say "after winning"?:
1973: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (CLT), who staged the event after winning the 1972 contest for Luxembourg with the song "Après toi" by Vicky Leandros."
It would be simpler and more direct. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that does make sense actually, cuts down on the filler for sure. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a thought as well that possibly moving the song/artist to the front might also make some sense too?
1973: "It was organised by the ... (EBU) and host broadcaster ... (CLT), who staged the event after the song "Après toi" performed by Vicky Leandros won the 1972 contest for Luxembourg."
Moves the emphasis away from the country and onto the song and performer. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that writing the sentence like that, it loses part of its meaning. Although it is undoubtedly that the song wins the contest, without the "with", we lose the connection between the song and the broadcaster. And the only reason for the piece after the comma is to clarify why CLT is the host broadcaster this year: because it was the winning broadcaster the previous year.
I think my last example best accomplishes what we want to say. Ending the sentence with the song and the artist doesn't diminish its importance; on the contrary, in a way, it enhances them. And everything remains consistent with 1972 when we openly state that the previous year's winning broadcaster threw in the towel on hosting duties. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK I do see your point there. Happy to proceed with your latest suggested wording. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I'm already putting the auto-bot in the oven! :) Ferclopedio (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have already aligned the lead in all "normal" years up to 2004. I haven't gone any further, because I'd be entering the world of semi-finals, and that's uncharted territory, where the leads are still unaligned with this structure. It remains to review the special years where finding a host was mess and align them with 1972. Ferclopedio (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a fair approach. There is definitely more of a standardised approach to the lead on articles pre-2004 (mainly down to my GA nominations I'd say), so makes sense to me. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued tweaking the article leads post-2004, and I think I've managed to keep the structure standard and coherent with the previous ones as best as possible (tell me if it makes sense for you).
But as I get to 2009, I've noticed a hidden exception to the rule of the winning broadcaster staging the following year's event, which we hadn't considered. RTR won the 2008 contest, but it was C1R who staged 2009. And they're real rivals. If I'm not mistaken, this makes it the only time another broadcaster from the same country staged the event instead of the winning broadcaster. I don't know the background of these two broadcasters' participation well, other than that they alternated, and the reasons why C1R ultimately didn't stage (perhaps it was simply that they took the alternation to the extreme), but this is an exception that I think can be added to the lists of exceptions. Ferclopedio (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the case of 2017, but I don't think of that as an exception to the rule, because although they were indeed two different companies, one is the legal successor of the other. There was a legal restructuring of the broadcasting company between the winning and the staging and just as the new company inherited the assets of the old one, it also inherited the ESC hosting rights. Ferclopedio (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).