Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulgarian song will have a part in English[edit]

I’d like to bring to your attention that Bulgarian song this year will have a part in English. But that’s unfortunately hard to confirm. I came across this information in video in Bulgarian and asked natives to confirm it. I don’t think the forum thread where I asked that will do as a confirmation. Nevertheless here is the link. The relevant are the 1st and the 2nd replies. Thanks for your time. Ivan Ustjuzhanin. 217.107.126.108 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA rewrite[edit]

@Wesley Wolf: In what spare time I have, I'm making edits to bring this up to good article quality. I'm generally finding little mistakes here and there with formatting, overlinking, etc. I have a few questions, however, and I feel you could probably answer them:

  • The lead practically copies the section on the participating countries. I expect it would be better to remove most of the second paragraph from the lead altogether. There are no debuts like there were in good article Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014, so everything else can probably be excluded. As for the remaining text on voting, I'm not sure what to do with this.
  • Who are the "Reference Group"? They receive no mention in the references. It seems to be jargon that could be confused with the statistical term. Is there a better way to phrase this?
  • "points had been awarded based on a combination of 50% national juries and 50% televoting" – This doesn't make sense to me. I understand what it means, but I feel there has to be a better way of saying it.
  • The "Voting" section overall just needs a total rewrite. I can do that, but I'm keen for the previous two matters to be cleared up.
  • Does the Interval Acts section even belong in the article? I've looked at JESC 2014 and ESC 2012, the best articles for their respective contest, and interval acts only receive a mention in the infobox at the top. Also, if it is to be kept, should the information be rephrased? Currently it lists several announcements, but doesn't say they happened. e.g. "It was announced X would perform" should be "X performed".

There are more issues, no doubt, but I'll have to address those later. Thanks. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 11:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't worry to much about this, as the GA reviewers don't always follow the same script when it comes to reviewing. So improvements you might make that you feel are good, may not be seen as good to the reviewer. You'll find 99.9% of the time that they will offer suggestions on improvement. This article is no where near ready for a GA review yet. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to bring it within sniffing distance of a GA let alone a B-class. It is like the lead section, I would never work on that until the rest of the article is of a good standard. OK the lead is first, but should be written last as it summarises the main article. It is impossible to re-write a lead section, when the main article content hasn't even been improved. Even the most experienced of psychics would struggle in that area.
The "Reference Group" are the steering group, the ones who discuss the format of the shows etc. Often referred to as the "Reference Group" - which common terms and names are OK, and would not be confused with any form of statistical terminology. The points were not a 50/50 combined like in previous contest's. JESC 2016 adopted the new voting system that ESC 2016 and 2017 used. So I agree that the wording needs to be tweaked a little bit. The interval acts should have a section, yes. I know the other two articles you linked do not have them, but they are not a big of a deal to be fair. The infobox is like the lead and should be summarising the article body. We shouldn't have intervals listed in an infobox if they are not mentioned in the main article body. Look at ESC 2016, and 2017 - they use interval act sections. This is another reason why I plan to open a RfC, as the last one was 7 years ago, and the contest and project alone have evolved immensely over that period of time.
So I'd hang fire on trying to rush towards GA standard. Become familiar with the classification, the criteria of GA, before trying to get into deep waters. P.S. Tuxipedia you forgot to sign your post. Wes Wolf Talk 11:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the call out on the signature. I need to be more careful.
I'm relatively aware of GA standards. I'm simply mopping up the obvious issues before the fine details get sorted out, although I probably am being a little overzealous with overlinking. All I'm saying is that the article won't sort itself out, so I'm putting in a little time to ensure we can be looking at a GA review in the future. Although after "Yodel It!", I've lost a little bit of faith in the reviewing process. I won't rush things. I haven't deleted content yet, only rewritten. I'll address some of the things you said earlier:
If I Google "reference group", I find nothing except mention of the statistical group. On the other hand, if I Google "steering group", I get a definition. I reckon that if we have to choose, we should pick the one which more people would know, the latter, especially given that neither is specifically mentioned in the citations.
I think the quote on points has been taken slightly out of context. My mistake. It describes the past method of voting in contrast to the new one. I simply think that it isn't very well written.
You still haven't said whether or not the interval act section should be rewritten from a series of announcements to a series of performances. That was the second part of the question in my first post.
Thanks for your time in reading my rather long and arduous post. I'm sorting out the obvious issues before I start nit-picking. On a side note, do you have any sources to prove the draw order for TSC 2013? I've looked all over and haven't found anything, meaning that I'm stuck on this article. Feel free to respond directly to my talk page on that last matter. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 22:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally opt for "steering group" as that are what they are commonly known as, and I think the EBU website has a page for them. Wes Wolf Talk 09:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change from "Reference" to "steering". I've also written a Hosts section. It's well sourced (it took my hours to find all the references), albeit a bit too long perhaps. You'd be a better judge of that, I suppose. By the way, should there be a section on the graphic design like in 2014? Not only could it be informative, it would fix the awful formatting up the top by shifting the image of the main stage down into its appropriate section. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 10:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tuxipedia: I would use the 2014 article as a base idea, and perhaps Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (which is A-class). Follow the nomination procedure at WP:GAN, and a reviewer should ideally provide any suggestions on improving the article even more. The International broadcasts and voting section could do with a small prose to explain what it is about, as that will boost the chance of GA status. Wes Wolf Talk 13:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators sourcing[edit]

I'm a little concerned about the commentator information. Right now, 10 of the 23 entries have no sourcing, constituting original research, which is completely inappropriate if this is to be nominated for a good article. The following table should help us track down the information, or failing that, identify incorrect information:

Country Contributor Commentator Broadcaster Edit
 Armenia Fort esc (talk · contribs) Avet Barseghyan Armenia 1 here
 Australia Lerandomperson (talk · contribs) No commentary SBS One here
 Bulgaria 009988aaabbbccc (talk · contribs) Elena Rosberg, Georgi Kushvaliev BNT 1, BNT HD, BNT World here
 Cyprus 213.7.240.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Kyriacos Pastides CyBC 2 here
 Ireland 86.40.153.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Eoghan McDermott TG4 here
 Macedonia 89.205.118.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Eli Tanaskovska MRT 1 here
 Malta 88.203.19.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) No commentary TVM1 here
 Netherlands 86.90.223.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Jan Smit NPO 3 here
 Russia 009988aaabbbccc (talk · contribs) Olga Shelest Carousel here
 Ukraine 009988aaabbbccc (talk · contribs) Timur Miroshnychenko Pershyi Natsionalnyi here

I aim to cross off the entries in this table as I verify information. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 09:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxipedia: Feel free to remove Armenia, i don't remember where i found that infomation. Possibly got confused as he was a songwriter that year. I will try to find sources for the other countries. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to change the IP edits back to TBA. Although the Dutch one, I do recall Jan Smit being the commentator since 2003. Has anyone tried a Google search for these? The other concern is if none of these cannot be sources, and end up as TBA's, then the article will fail good article nominations. Wes Wolf Talk 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've spent a long time Googling names over the last few days. The only one I managed to find through thorough searching was Albania. I wish Anthony Granger would post the information on commentators like he used to. Given that he usually knows these things, it could be worth asking him for some sources (I mean where he gets his information from, not asking him to post things at our request). He seemed diplomatic last time he got contacted by a Wikipedian. Sorry if I sound desperate. I'd just be rather disappointed if this falls through and we can't push this past C-class. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 22:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tuxipedia: Only two issues with asking for sources or where Eurovoix gains them from. 1) If you asked Anthony Granger to post sources, then we cannot use them as it makes the source a requested self-pub. 2) Finding out where he gets them from and then contacting those people would also be requested self-pub (contaminated sourced to simplify the terminology for both). Eurovoix actually posted something a while ago that was copied material from Wikipedia, and I personally contacted Eurovoix about the matter. Mr Granger acknowledged and knew the implications it caused. So I would refrain from contacting whatsoever. ESCKaz is already on the blacklist because they copied material from WikiProject Eurovision, and it took several emails from CT Cooper and Pickette, to try and get them to understand the wrong doing. And unfortunately for them they are blacklisted. ESC-Plus was another to receive a source ban as their chief editor was editing Wikipedia with her own published content as sources. Another was ESC United, who again an editor from this project joined their team and started to insert their own published sources. So avoid contacting a website directly, as we are running low on sourced material as it is. Wes Wolf Talk 22:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in a strange twist, look at the WHOIS for each of the IP edits. Each one is located in the country they posted it for. So either the commentator, broadcaster, or a viewer from the respective country's provided the content. I'm not overly familiar on the procedure on cases like this, and may need to seek more expert advice. Wes Wolf Talk 23:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't clear. I meant contacting him in order to find out how he knows what he knows, not simply asking him to post information at our request. If he is using primary sources from official broadcasters, we can cite the original sources, as that is better than unsourced content. But I'm happy to seek a different route anyway. What are you thinking of when you say an expert? — Tuxipεdia(talk) 23:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source found for Netherlands. Article updated, and table above struck out. Wes Wolf Talk 23:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! 1 down, 9 to go. If this table gets completely struck through, I'm going to be overjoyed. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 23:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuxipedia: I'm using various methods, trying all the sources on this project list (as some are not the "regular" sources like ESCToday etc). Also doing Google search of "Name JESC 2016" or "Country Commentator JESC 2016"; results are coming through roughly. Wes Wolf Talk 23:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. The Dutch broadcaster is wrong. The source I found along with the Dutch NPO site shows NPO Zapp, not NPO 3. Wes Wolf Talk 23:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did used Google a heap, but I only got those awful mirror sites like revolvy. I wish I knew a way to remove them from my search preferences. Maybe it's because I'm using Google NZ or something. I dunno. But good job. For what it's worth, I seem to recall while browsing the article history the broadcaster originally being NPO Zapp, rather than 3. So it may have been somebody making incorrect assumptions. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 23:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, here is a source that might prove NPO 3 did broadcast it. Maybe they both did? — Tuxipεdia(talk) 00:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would personally try all sites in Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Sources. One of them must have something on commentators, I'd even risk at searching the "caution" sites, as they may be of help in these rare circumstances Wes Wolf Talk 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at NPO Zapp, it is a children's segment broadcast on NPO 3. A bit like when here in the UK, BBC One would "switch" as CBBC (a children's segment), or ITV would do the same as CITV. Wes Wolf Talk 00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fort esc: Good news. It looks like you may have been correct after all about Avet Barseghyan. According to this source, he is the commentator as well as the songwriter. I'll add it in. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 10:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird how i looked on that website a few times (thinking that was where i found it originally). Fort esc (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian broadcaster was indeed Timur Miroshnychenko, as indicated by this recent article by Eurovoix stating he has commentated on all since 2006 asides from 2009 and 2013. Given this would naturally include 2016, we have a source. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 08:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2016. 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:

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) 23:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2016&oldid=1161132454"