| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miss Universe 2006 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detail of Miss Universe pageants in recent years, according to MUO website and Order of announcement during the Live Telecast - they are similar. There was no exact placements in top 10 and top 20 that year so please don't changed alphabetical order of country name. Thank you.
- Note: There was a small order mistake of Denmark's placement on MUO website. There was no exact placements in top 10 and top 20 that year. [1]
| According to MUO [2] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [3] [4] [5] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
- Official placements of Miss Universe 2007 [6]
| According to MUO [7] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [8] [9] [10] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
- Official placements of Miss Universe 2008 [11]
| According to MUO [12] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [13] [14] [15] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
When wikilinking to a delegate on this list, please remember to add the delegate to Category:Miss Universe 2006 delegates. -- Pag eantUpdater 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the "predicted list of winners" per WP:Not a crystal ball. This should not be here, I think, unless it is cited from a reputable predictor.-- Brian G 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the note about there being a top twenty should not be included until there is a more reliable source than Global Beauties to verify it. Opinions? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Cyprus situated in Asia and Bahamas in Europe????
I have two questions... first, should this even include a list of delegates (see Miss Universe 2005 and Miss Universe 2004, which did not include a list of delegates)... and second, if the list is retained, should it be separated into continents or be listed alphabetically? I would prefer alphabetically, because with the three-column formatting the headings are difficult to view and this list practically requires you to use "find" to find the delegate you want. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that having a list of delegates is good, but I liked it much better when it was alphabetical instead of grouped by continents. --
Brian G 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the alphabetical listing. Or more exactly, how about putting these information in a table (i.e. column for country, name, age, height, placing at Ms. Universe), in that way, it will be easier to navigate instead of the current arrangement. In terms of relevance, people (esp those who are ignorant of pageants) may not find this useful. And there are also lists of delegates per edition made available in the Internet. Then again, this article's list may be more informative as it provides age and height of the delegates. Together with some other information (trivia, results, etc.), this article may actually be useful, as leading pageant websites remove such feature pages whenever a new edition is about to take place. --
Joey80 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I returned it to alphabetical last night and took out the "excess" names -- I guess this is useful in that it provides wikilinks to delegates who did not place, but it definitely needed to go back to straight alphabetising. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the alphabetical listing. Or more exactly, how about putting these information in a table (i.e. column for country, name, age, height, placing at Ms. Universe), in that way, it will be easier to navigate instead of the current arrangement. In terms of relevance, people (esp those who are ignorant of pageants) may not find this useful. And there are also lists of delegates per edition made available in the Internet. Then again, this article's list may be more informative as it provides age and height of the delegates. Together with some other information (trivia, results, etc.), this article may actually be useful, as leading pageant websites remove such feature pages whenever a new edition is about to take place. --
Joey80 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this is quite a useful piece on the pageant. i have saved it in my local m/c lest some one remove the details )people have questioned there relevance.-- Hydman 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
why was the controversy portion removed? Live! 05:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can rewrite it so that it has an encyclopaedic tone and is backed by reliable source evidence you are welcome to include it. In the form that it was in it was not suitable (I was not the one who deleted it but I agree with that decision). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this deserves to be mentioned, but we do need facts. At least a translation of what exactly the translator said to Miss Japan. I'll see if I can get my hands on one. Elmer92413 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I currently think the look of the delegates table is terrible and that there are MoS issues here. I propose removing all the bolding etc, but also think that the heights and ages should be removed to reduce space, and because I think this information is not necessary here. I propose redoing the table in the format of Miss Universe 2007. I will make the changes in a few days if there is no objection. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- As there has been no comment in the five days since I left that message I will go ahead and reformat the table. If you object, please leave comments here rather than reverting, so we can discuss the issue. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 09:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Miss Universe 2006
Angelo de la Paz, the things you listed in regards to Miss Universe 2006 are irrelevant; it's your own interpretation and it has never been published in an official Miss Universe article.
An official article of the placings exists and it should have priority.
Wikipedia states that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
Do not delete the official Miss Universe link of the placements:
http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
MUCfan ( talk) 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder that you don't understand what I am talking about, even it's English. I've given you all proofs (official related video clips and other pageant websites as Pageantopolis and Pageant-Almanac) that show MUO didn't arrange exact placements of top 10 and top 20 of Miss Universe 2006, as well as 2 latest editions as well. BTW, when you do that with only MU 2006 when Canada has placed for the last time? Not with 2007 and 2008 pageants which also have the same case with this one? Look and read it as more as you can to when you already understand it. Thank you. Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
VANDALISM
Angelo de la Paz, this is your subjective interpretation based on your own assumptions. Your opinion is not neutral because you're deleting repeatedly the official Miss Universe link with the placements http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
You are preventing other editors to add verifiable sources and this is against Wikipedia policies. What you are doing is vandalism.
MUCfan ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Errors in the placements of Miss Universe 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2002 listed on Wikipedia
All of Miss Universe 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2002 placements can be found on the official Miss Universe link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html and they all have different placements than the ones listed on Wikipedia respective articles for each year. In some of them there isn't any source cited for the rankings, on others is cited only unofficial sources known for their errors http://www.pageantopolis.com/international/universe_2006.htm and http://www.pageant-almanac.com/miss-universe/semi-finalists.php
The general official site is given, but not the direct link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html with all the information about the ranking in the above years.
The source http://www.pageant-almanac.com/miss-universe/semi-finalists.php is unreliable because they have listed the rankings for the rest of the top 15 in Miss Universe 2005, but the official site http://www.missuniverse.com/press/05.30.05.html doesn't have them even listed(they have only 10 listed).
Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that the standard is verifiability, meaning, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, and this reliable source is
http://www.missuniverse.com/press/05.30.05.html, not the websites of pageantpolis and pageantalmanac.
Nfirm1295 ( talk) 14:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments regarding verifiability, but the difficulty is that there is nothing on the Miss Universe press site link which states any reason that the contestants are listed that way - i.e. some recognition that they are "listed in alphabetical order", "listed in call-out order" or "listed in placement order". Making the assumption that they are in placement order is thus effectively original research. I'm trying to find a third-party source from a news organisation but no luck yet. My interpretation is that it would be acceptable to list them in either order here, either alphabetically with a disclaimer that it is alphabetical, or by the order listed on the Miss Universe site with no disclaimer as there is no such explanation available. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello PageantUpdater and thank you for responding. I always enjoy reading your talk page because you always try to be as neutral as possible and to provide the most reliable sources.
In regards to what you said above "Making the assumption that they are in placement order is thus effectively original research." I agree with. But isn't it original research also if you make the opposite assumption that they are not in placement order? At least if the contestants were listed in Wikipedia articles in the same order listed on the official site http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html, there wouldn't be any confusion because if people wanted to know more they could contact the original source (Miss Universe Organization, http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html).
Please, take a look at the Reference part of this article for example (Miss Universe 2006), and you will see that one of the editors has made all kinds of assumptions, he/she even listed "evidence" above which is original research and as you pointed out not acceptable, right? Is it an acceptable source if a contestant from any of the above years has mentioned her placement in an interview with a news organization in a video or article?
Nfirm1295 ( talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The fact is that we're never going to know why they put them in that order. Deciding one way or another, as you correctly stated, is WP:OR. In the fact of this, we either have to make the decision to put it in alphabetical order (and put a disclaimer as such) or to simply put it in the order used by MUO with no disclaimer. When there is no clear path, I'd say the best thing to do is just use MUO's order, but really there's no really obvious right or wrong way. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Is a source acceptable, if a contestant from any of the above years, has mentioned her placement in an interview with a news organization in a video or article?
Nfirm1295 ( talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Since no scores were shown on TV or made public elsewhere from 2003 to 2006, there should be a source for the scores that are published in the entry. It looks like a fabrication otherwise. Again, the Miss Universe pageant did NOT show competition scores that year. Fra77 ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fra77 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There is someone, I believe a random IP, changing the results and adding MU 2013 candidates. Can he be banned from editing? Is there something we can do? He does this on other Miss Universe pages as well.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miss Universe 2006. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810130230/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003147861_miss24.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003147861_miss24.html
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 09:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miss Universe 2006 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detail of Miss Universe pageants in recent years, according to MUO website and Order of announcement during the Live Telecast - they are similar. There was no exact placements in top 10 and top 20 that year so please don't changed alphabetical order of country name. Thank you.
- Note: There was a small order mistake of Denmark's placement on MUO website. There was no exact placements in top 10 and top 20 that year. [1]
| According to MUO [2] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [3] [4] [5] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
- Official placements of Miss Universe 2007 [6]
| According to MUO [7] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [8] [9] [10] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
- Official placements of Miss Universe 2008 [11]
| According to MUO [12] | Order of announcement (Live Telecast) [13] [14] [15] |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
When wikilinking to a delegate on this list, please remember to add the delegate to Category:Miss Universe 2006 delegates. -- Pag eantUpdater 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the "predicted list of winners" per WP:Not a crystal ball. This should not be here, I think, unless it is cited from a reputable predictor.-- Brian G 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the note about there being a top twenty should not be included until there is a more reliable source than Global Beauties to verify it. Opinions? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Cyprus situated in Asia and Bahamas in Europe????
I have two questions... first, should this even include a list of delegates (see Miss Universe 2005 and Miss Universe 2004, which did not include a list of delegates)... and second, if the list is retained, should it be separated into continents or be listed alphabetically? I would prefer alphabetically, because with the three-column formatting the headings are difficult to view and this list practically requires you to use "find" to find the delegate you want. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that having a list of delegates is good, but I liked it much better when it was alphabetical instead of grouped by continents. --
Brian G 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the alphabetical listing. Or more exactly, how about putting these information in a table (i.e. column for country, name, age, height, placing at Ms. Universe), in that way, it will be easier to navigate instead of the current arrangement. In terms of relevance, people (esp those who are ignorant of pageants) may not find this useful. And there are also lists of delegates per edition made available in the Internet. Then again, this article's list may be more informative as it provides age and height of the delegates. Together with some other information (trivia, results, etc.), this article may actually be useful, as leading pageant websites remove such feature pages whenever a new edition is about to take place. --
Joey80 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I returned it to alphabetical last night and took out the "excess" names -- I guess this is useful in that it provides wikilinks to delegates who did not place, but it definitely needed to go back to straight alphabetising. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the alphabetical listing. Or more exactly, how about putting these information in a table (i.e. column for country, name, age, height, placing at Ms. Universe), in that way, it will be easier to navigate instead of the current arrangement. In terms of relevance, people (esp those who are ignorant of pageants) may not find this useful. And there are also lists of delegates per edition made available in the Internet. Then again, this article's list may be more informative as it provides age and height of the delegates. Together with some other information (trivia, results, etc.), this article may actually be useful, as leading pageant websites remove such feature pages whenever a new edition is about to take place. --
Joey80 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this is quite a useful piece on the pageant. i have saved it in my local m/c lest some one remove the details )people have questioned there relevance.-- Hydman 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
why was the controversy portion removed? Live! 05:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can rewrite it so that it has an encyclopaedic tone and is backed by reliable source evidence you are welcome to include it. In the form that it was in it was not suitable (I was not the one who deleted it but I agree with that decision). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this deserves to be mentioned, but we do need facts. At least a translation of what exactly the translator said to Miss Japan. I'll see if I can get my hands on one. Elmer92413 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I currently think the look of the delegates table is terrible and that there are MoS issues here. I propose removing all the bolding etc, but also think that the heights and ages should be removed to reduce space, and because I think this information is not necessary here. I propose redoing the table in the format of Miss Universe 2007. I will make the changes in a few days if there is no objection. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- As there has been no comment in the five days since I left that message I will go ahead and reformat the table. If you object, please leave comments here rather than reverting, so we can discuss the issue. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 09:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Miss Universe 2006
Angelo de la Paz, the things you listed in regards to Miss Universe 2006 are irrelevant; it's your own interpretation and it has never been published in an official Miss Universe article.
An official article of the placings exists and it should have priority.
Wikipedia states that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
Do not delete the official Miss Universe link of the placements:
http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
MUCfan ( talk) 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder that you don't understand what I am talking about, even it's English. I've given you all proofs (official related video clips and other pageant websites as Pageantopolis and Pageant-Almanac) that show MUO didn't arrange exact placements of top 10 and top 20 of Miss Universe 2006, as well as 2 latest editions as well. BTW, when you do that with only MU 2006 when Canada has placed for the last time? Not with 2007 and 2008 pageants which also have the same case with this one? Look and read it as more as you can to when you already understand it. Thank you. Angelo De La Paz ( talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
VANDALISM
Angelo de la Paz, this is your subjective interpretation based on your own assumptions. Your opinion is not neutral because you're deleting repeatedly the official Miss Universe link with the placements http://www.missuniverse.com/press/07.23.06.html
You are preventing other editors to add verifiable sources and this is against Wikipedia policies. What you are doing is vandalism.
MUCfan ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Errors in the placements of Miss Universe 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2002 listed on Wikipedia
All of Miss Universe 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2002 placements can be found on the official Miss Universe link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html and they all have different placements than the ones listed on Wikipedia respective articles for each year. In some of them there isn't any source cited for the rankings, on others is cited only unofficial sources known for their errors http://www.pageantopolis.com/international/universe_2006.htm and http://www.pageant-almanac.com/miss-universe/semi-finalists.php
The general official site is given, but not the direct link http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html with all the information about the ranking in the above years.
The source http://www.pageant-almanac.com/miss-universe/semi-finalists.php is unreliable because they have listed the rankings for the rest of the top 15 in Miss Universe 2005, but the official site http://www.missuniverse.com/press/05.30.05.html doesn't have them even listed(they have only 10 listed).
Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that the standard is verifiability, meaning, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, and this reliable source is
http://www.missuniverse.com/press/05.30.05.html, not the websites of pageantpolis and pageantalmanac.
Nfirm1295 ( talk) 14:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments regarding verifiability, but the difficulty is that there is nothing on the Miss Universe press site link which states any reason that the contestants are listed that way - i.e. some recognition that they are "listed in alphabetical order", "listed in call-out order" or "listed in placement order". Making the assumption that they are in placement order is thus effectively original research. I'm trying to find a third-party source from a news organisation but no luck yet. My interpretation is that it would be acceptable to list them in either order here, either alphabetically with a disclaimer that it is alphabetical, or by the order listed on the Miss Universe site with no disclaimer as there is no such explanation available. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello PageantUpdater and thank you for responding. I always enjoy reading your talk page because you always try to be as neutral as possible and to provide the most reliable sources.
In regards to what you said above "Making the assumption that they are in placement order is thus effectively original research." I agree with. But isn't it original research also if you make the opposite assumption that they are not in placement order? At least if the contestants were listed in Wikipedia articles in the same order listed on the official site http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html, there wouldn't be any confusion because if people wanted to know more they could contact the original source (Miss Universe Organization, http://www.missuniverse.com/press/index.html).
Please, take a look at the Reference part of this article for example (Miss Universe 2006), and you will see that one of the editors has made all kinds of assumptions, he/she even listed "evidence" above which is original research and as you pointed out not acceptable, right? Is it an acceptable source if a contestant from any of the above years has mentioned her placement in an interview with a news organization in a video or article?
Nfirm1295 ( talk) 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The fact is that we're never going to know why they put them in that order. Deciding one way or another, as you correctly stated, is WP:OR. In the fact of this, we either have to make the decision to put it in alphabetical order (and put a disclaimer as such) or to simply put it in the order used by MUO with no disclaimer. When there is no clear path, I'd say the best thing to do is just use MUO's order, but really there's no really obvious right or wrong way. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Is a source acceptable, if a contestant from any of the above years, has mentioned her placement in an interview with a news organization in a video or article?
Nfirm1295 ( talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Since no scores were shown on TV or made public elsewhere from 2003 to 2006, there should be a source for the scores that are published in the entry. It looks like a fabrication otherwise. Again, the Miss Universe pageant did NOT show competition scores that year. Fra77 ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fra77 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There is someone, I believe a random IP, changing the results and adding MU 2013 candidates. Can he be banned from editing? Is there something we can do? He does this on other Miss Universe pages as well.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miss Universe 2006. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810130230/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003147861_miss24.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003147861_miss24.html
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 09:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)