This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eurovision Song Contest template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Eurovision Template‑class | |||||||
|
I propose we remove the host cities and venues as they are of minor importance to this template and makes it bloated and hard to use. The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation and while this template is useful to navigate between different contests, it is highly unlikely that it will be used to navigate between cities. The inclusion of the host cities and venues also means the template is harder to use as the links that are actually useful have to be hidden behind collapsed boxes. Väsk ( talk) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Again I strongly urge that you move this entire debate over to Project Eurovision talk page, if you wish for it to receive a more broader input from other project members, seeing as this is a template created by ProjectEurovision for Eurovision-related articles. As you pointed out, you don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to suggest changes of articles. But this isn't an article, it's a template. Wes Mouse 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, then we might as well take the issue over to WikiProject Cities, as this template is apparently about a bunch of cities. It doesn't matter if it isn't an article, templates do not " belong" to projects either. As this template is transcluded into various articles about cities it clearly goes beyond the scope of your project. Also, WikiProjects cannot locally decide that their articles should go against general guidelines, and this template clearly doesn't follow the spirit of WP:NAVBOX. I appreciate the work you've put into these templates, but would suggest that you think a bit more about their usability and their function in the larger encyclopedia. Väsk ( talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Wesley Mouse: I don't find any consensus anywhere to include "cities" in Eurovision navboxes, and any such WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that goes against established policies and practices is null and void. That the content once existed and was once merged here is not a proof of an active consensus to preserve it. WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. Now, both Väsk and myself challenge that apparent silence. On the merits, I maintain that its inclusion here violates about every point in WP:NAV:
every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page.
The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?
They should be kept small in size
If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL expressly requires that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.
and I strongly agree with
Väsk that No-one would seriously suggest that those navboxes should be transcluded into every article about a metropolis that has at one time hosted one of these events. Again, navboxes are for navigation, they are not meant to substitute or duplicate lists.
I discovered this Template after I spotted it within a dozen navboxes at
Belgrade and I claim this is navbox-spam, pure and simple. Didn't check other metropolis' articles, but I hardly believe it has been consistently placed there.
No such user (
talk) 09:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
|above =
parameter) along with other articles that are relevant to the contest but also avoiding "spam" is something that should be discussed. And stop with the Wikilawyering of what "directly violates" this, that, and the other. Such behaviour is just as disruptive and is suppose to be avoided in debates of this nature. Control the conduct if you require a peaceful resolution in this matter. And have we forgotten
ignore all rules.
Wes Mouse
T@lk 10:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)"an editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda". You have clearly demonstrated that in here by force-feeding policies and POV pushing on what the navbox should and should not be containing. As I said, if you feel the host cities is of concern, rather than blanket removal, that a proposal of a new idea should have been put forward. Merely because we are handling a navbox that is on a plethora of articles. We're to avoid mass-impact, and discuss matters to reach a consensus. You never did such action, nor allow others to discuss any subsequent proposals. And so what if it was done 8 months ago? That does not mean you have the right to "claim it has enjoyed consensus" (and grammatically "has" should read "as"). Such action makes you look like you own everything, and I'm sorry but you don't. There is an article on host cities which clearly needs to be shown somewhere on the navbox, even if it means not listing the host cities per se. I've already come up with one solution, which you have not commented on, or are just refusing to comment on because it doesn't conform with your "blanket removal" option. Discussion other options, not sticking to full removal. Wes Mouse T@lk 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Three words to that remark. Kettle, pot, black! Your remarks are also are accusing me of sinister motives, bad faith, and collateral damage. Had it escaped your mentality that what you are saying is coming across as much worse than my own words? Tit for tat, my friend. One should expect to get their fingers burnt if they purposely play with matchsticks and fuel. And now you throw even more bad faith attacked with the remark "because your revert caused significant collateral damage that is being fixed"
. Sorry, but that is such uncooperative replying if ever I have seen it on here. The template was merged from 10 other templates, into a "super-template". So rather than having 10 templates on articles (which would be navbox-spam) and having an "all-in-one" type (which is less spam) was work in progress. Your action to remove content, rather than proposing a change was the disruption. Just look back and think... if you had proposed a change and along the lines of the one I made below, and people agreed to it. We would not be having this very discussion. So you have wasted more time, to be fair. Use logic in future. I would never dream of making mass-changes to a navbox without seeking consensus from the wider community. It prevents having to eat our own humble pie.
Wes Mouse
T@lk 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I have just discovered that there is also Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest venues which is basically doing the same thing as the now deleted and merged Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest. That too will require the main Junior Eurovision template being redesigned to the same format as this, its senior counterpart. Anyone fancy working on that and nominated the JESC venue one for TfD? Wes Mouse T@lk 15:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Having the host cities listed in the navbox is clearly causing some concerns with a small selection of users, and this concern needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and in a peaceful manner. The users who have raised an issue have not provided any alternative proposal to house such information on host cities within the navbox template. Therefore I shall put forward an alternative solution.
There is the article
List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest in existence which needs to be shown somewhere on the template, just like the other articles on winners, history, OGAE etc. Perhaps the alternative work-around on this is to have
Host cities added to the (in the |above =
parameter) of the navbox. That way there is no list of cities, the chances of "navbox-spam" across city articles is significantly reduced, and the navbox still contains its original data on host cities, with the link to take the general viewer to the host city article.
Wes Mouse
T@lk 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Changes implemented. Cities and stadia were too tangential. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The template has done under what feels like the proverbial axe lately and hacked to near-death and is making it look more confusing than it did before it was chopped to pieces. The top bar of the template is so crammed with links that it is starting to look like Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch (yes that place in Wales which ironically I can pronounce). Also the countries in the unsuccessful part got removed, re-added, removed again, and current back on the template. Now as I can appreciate the reason why the editor removed them, I am somewhat bemused at the same time. Each of the countries linked in that section navigate to their respective sections within the target article, making navigation more pin-point. However, I feel that it may be time that a thorough discussion is going to be required at Talk WikiProject Eurovision and start the entire design process of not just this, but all template under Project Eurovision's scope, and do so from scratch as if we were designing them for the first time. They need to address all of the concerns, whilst also doing it purpose job, and taking into account the complexity of Eurovision. But I propose that until a full decision on the re-design of all templates has been reached, that any major changes should be put on hold, and the templates left in status quo, as it could b a case of making any changes post-discussion, and then any redundant navboxes be speedy-deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse T@lk 13:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
OMFG (excuse my language) but I have just fallen in love with the design for the first one. I looked at it and just bounced off my chair and knocked my cuppa coffee off the table in excitement. I'd even be happy to let that one be changed with immediate effect. As for the country one, I can see where it is heading. But I would like to see how it would look for countries such as the UK. 61 entries on something like that is going to look a mess. And what happens when Eurovision reaches 100 years? My Lord they would be crammed and unreadable. The country ones are more detailed and need better planning and work. Wes Mouse T@lk 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought I'd missed one. Thanks @ Fort esc:. And yes the pre-qual of the 90s should be included. But with the simplified design should make it easier now where to place it. Wes Mouse T@lk 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Entries Norfin ( talk) 18:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Should Eurovision Asia Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest be added to the template, and if so would it be worth starting a Spin-offs section to include them in? Dunarc ( talk) 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems misleading to me to include Lebanon in the "eligible" section simply because they selected an entry once, when there are plenty of other eligible countries who have never participated. I think Lebanon should be in the "inactive" section. dummelaksen ( talk) 12:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Sims2aholic8: you moved Belarus to the "Former" section since they are no longer an EBU member, although I actually interpreted this as meaning "former countries" (as in dissolved ones), rather than "former EBU members". ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 13:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eurovision Song Contest template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Eurovision Template‑class | |||||||
|
I propose we remove the host cities and venues as they are of minor importance to this template and makes it bloated and hard to use. The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation and while this template is useful to navigate between different contests, it is highly unlikely that it will be used to navigate between cities. The inclusion of the host cities and venues also means the template is harder to use as the links that are actually useful have to be hidden behind collapsed boxes. Väsk ( talk) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Again I strongly urge that you move this entire debate over to Project Eurovision talk page, if you wish for it to receive a more broader input from other project members, seeing as this is a template created by ProjectEurovision for Eurovision-related articles. As you pointed out, you don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to suggest changes of articles. But this isn't an article, it's a template. Wes Mouse 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, then we might as well take the issue over to WikiProject Cities, as this template is apparently about a bunch of cities. It doesn't matter if it isn't an article, templates do not " belong" to projects either. As this template is transcluded into various articles about cities it clearly goes beyond the scope of your project. Also, WikiProjects cannot locally decide that their articles should go against general guidelines, and this template clearly doesn't follow the spirit of WP:NAVBOX. I appreciate the work you've put into these templates, but would suggest that you think a bit more about their usability and their function in the larger encyclopedia. Väsk ( talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Wesley Mouse: I don't find any consensus anywhere to include "cities" in Eurovision navboxes, and any such WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that goes against established policies and practices is null and void. That the content once existed and was once merged here is not a proof of an active consensus to preserve it. WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. Now, both Väsk and myself challenge that apparent silence. On the merits, I maintain that its inclusion here violates about every point in WP:NAV:
every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page.
The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?
They should be kept small in size
If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL expressly requires that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.
and I strongly agree with
Väsk that No-one would seriously suggest that those navboxes should be transcluded into every article about a metropolis that has at one time hosted one of these events. Again, navboxes are for navigation, they are not meant to substitute or duplicate lists.
I discovered this Template after I spotted it within a dozen navboxes at
Belgrade and I claim this is navbox-spam, pure and simple. Didn't check other metropolis' articles, but I hardly believe it has been consistently placed there.
No such user (
talk) 09:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
|above =
parameter) along with other articles that are relevant to the contest but also avoiding "spam" is something that should be discussed. And stop with the Wikilawyering of what "directly violates" this, that, and the other. Such behaviour is just as disruptive and is suppose to be avoided in debates of this nature. Control the conduct if you require a peaceful resolution in this matter. And have we forgotten
ignore all rules.
Wes Mouse
T@lk 10:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)"an editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda". You have clearly demonstrated that in here by force-feeding policies and POV pushing on what the navbox should and should not be containing. As I said, if you feel the host cities is of concern, rather than blanket removal, that a proposal of a new idea should have been put forward. Merely because we are handling a navbox that is on a plethora of articles. We're to avoid mass-impact, and discuss matters to reach a consensus. You never did such action, nor allow others to discuss any subsequent proposals. And so what if it was done 8 months ago? That does not mean you have the right to "claim it has enjoyed consensus" (and grammatically "has" should read "as"). Such action makes you look like you own everything, and I'm sorry but you don't. There is an article on host cities which clearly needs to be shown somewhere on the navbox, even if it means not listing the host cities per se. I've already come up with one solution, which you have not commented on, or are just refusing to comment on because it doesn't conform with your "blanket removal" option. Discussion other options, not sticking to full removal. Wes Mouse T@lk 11:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Three words to that remark. Kettle, pot, black! Your remarks are also are accusing me of sinister motives, bad faith, and collateral damage. Had it escaped your mentality that what you are saying is coming across as much worse than my own words? Tit for tat, my friend. One should expect to get their fingers burnt if they purposely play with matchsticks and fuel. And now you throw even more bad faith attacked with the remark "because your revert caused significant collateral damage that is being fixed"
. Sorry, but that is such uncooperative replying if ever I have seen it on here. The template was merged from 10 other templates, into a "super-template". So rather than having 10 templates on articles (which would be navbox-spam) and having an "all-in-one" type (which is less spam) was work in progress. Your action to remove content, rather than proposing a change was the disruption. Just look back and think... if you had proposed a change and along the lines of the one I made below, and people agreed to it. We would not be having this very discussion. So you have wasted more time, to be fair. Use logic in future. I would never dream of making mass-changes to a navbox without seeking consensus from the wider community. It prevents having to eat our own humble pie.
Wes Mouse
T@lk 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I have just discovered that there is also Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest venues which is basically doing the same thing as the now deleted and merged Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest. That too will require the main Junior Eurovision template being redesigned to the same format as this, its senior counterpart. Anyone fancy working on that and nominated the JESC venue one for TfD? Wes Mouse T@lk 15:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Having the host cities listed in the navbox is clearly causing some concerns with a small selection of users, and this concern needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and in a peaceful manner. The users who have raised an issue have not provided any alternative proposal to house such information on host cities within the navbox template. Therefore I shall put forward an alternative solution.
There is the article
List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest in existence which needs to be shown somewhere on the template, just like the other articles on winners, history, OGAE etc. Perhaps the alternative work-around on this is to have
Host cities added to the (in the |above =
parameter) of the navbox. That way there is no list of cities, the chances of "navbox-spam" across city articles is significantly reduced, and the navbox still contains its original data on host cities, with the link to take the general viewer to the host city article.
Wes Mouse
T@lk 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Changes implemented. Cities and stadia were too tangential. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The template has done under what feels like the proverbial axe lately and hacked to near-death and is making it look more confusing than it did before it was chopped to pieces. The top bar of the template is so crammed with links that it is starting to look like Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch (yes that place in Wales which ironically I can pronounce). Also the countries in the unsuccessful part got removed, re-added, removed again, and current back on the template. Now as I can appreciate the reason why the editor removed them, I am somewhat bemused at the same time. Each of the countries linked in that section navigate to their respective sections within the target article, making navigation more pin-point. However, I feel that it may be time that a thorough discussion is going to be required at Talk WikiProject Eurovision and start the entire design process of not just this, but all template under Project Eurovision's scope, and do so from scratch as if we were designing them for the first time. They need to address all of the concerns, whilst also doing it purpose job, and taking into account the complexity of Eurovision. But I propose that until a full decision on the re-design of all templates has been reached, that any major changes should be put on hold, and the templates left in status quo, as it could b a case of making any changes post-discussion, and then any redundant navboxes be speedy-deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse T@lk 13:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
OMFG (excuse my language) but I have just fallen in love with the design for the first one. I looked at it and just bounced off my chair and knocked my cuppa coffee off the table in excitement. I'd even be happy to let that one be changed with immediate effect. As for the country one, I can see where it is heading. But I would like to see how it would look for countries such as the UK. 61 entries on something like that is going to look a mess. And what happens when Eurovision reaches 100 years? My Lord they would be crammed and unreadable. The country ones are more detailed and need better planning and work. Wes Mouse T@lk 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought I'd missed one. Thanks @ Fort esc:. And yes the pre-qual of the 90s should be included. But with the simplified design should make it easier now where to place it. Wes Mouse T@lk 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Entries Norfin ( talk) 18:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Should Eurovision Asia Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest be added to the template, and if so would it be worth starting a Spin-offs section to include them in? Dunarc ( talk) 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems misleading to me to include Lebanon in the "eligible" section simply because they selected an entry once, when there are plenty of other eligible countries who have never participated. I think Lebanon should be in the "inactive" section. dummelaksen ( talk) 12:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Sims2aholic8: you moved Belarus to the "Former" section since they are no longer an EBU member, although I actually interpreted this as meaning "former countries" (as in dissolved ones), rather than "former EBU members". ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 13:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)