Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pāli words in Gabbani's "Occidentali's Karma"?

Please discuss here.--Carnby (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As explained here, the only Pali word in this song is Buddha बुद्ध, which also exists natively in Sanskrit, and as a loanword in Italian itself, English and many other languages. Moreover, it's used as a capitalized proper noun in the lyrics, within a full sentence in Italian. I propose removing Pali from the list of languages of this song, just like French is not listed either (démodé is French but also a loanword in Italian), and like Arabic is not listed for Should've Known Better of Denmark 2012 (it contains in sha Allah إن شاء الله). Ancient Greek, English and Sanskrit may remain listed because some words from these languages in the song are not loanwords or are used on their own. Heitordp (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2017

This edit request to Eurovision Song Contest 2017 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

In the section ["International broadcasts and voting"], under the heading "Voting and spokespersons" add Australia and put Lee Lin Chin as the voting spokesperson REFERENCES: https://twitter.com/SBSEurovision/status/858942282749403136, http://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2017/05/01/sbs-announce-australias-2017-eurovision-jury-members Aquasmash (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately the twitter source you provided cannot be used per our policies on the us of Twitter as sourcing material. However, another editor has updated the article using thee SBS source you provided. Thank you for sharing this information with us. Wes Wolf ^Talk 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing content

There is content in the infobox that is not written in the main article body. Please can we remember that both the lead and infobox sections are summaries of the main article body. In 2016 we had Eurovision Song Contest 2016#Opening and interval acts section. Think it is time we caught up with ourselves. Wes Wolf ^Talk 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Director

Hi, the name of the Director is wrong. Ola Meltzig is not the Director of the show, he is the head of production. Directors are:

Director: Ladislaus Kiraly (Same as in 2011/2012). Multi Camera Directors: Troels Lund (Same as in 2014) and Alexander Kolb.

I don´t know why they make those two distinctions, but the guy who is controling the cameras during performances is Troels Lund.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wargreymon (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot just take your word for it, as that constitutes original research, something which Wikipedia prohibits. Any content regarding living people must include a citation to verify such additions. That is a strict rule around Wikipedia. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Verifying this is easy, its written on the credits at the end of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wargreymon (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add to this, as the credits act as a clear verifiable citation. On a production of unique circumstances such as this, both directors, or in this case all three (3) directors be credited in the Wikipedia page. All three credits are "director" credits, especially that of Lund (as opposed to additional credits with "director" such as 1st Assistant Director, Art Director, Stage Director). Eurovision is unique in its inclusion of a "qualifier" "Multi Camera", something traditionally prohibited by most directing guilds (Directors UK, D.G. America., others), by which Eurovision is uniquely not bound or governed. To my awareness, the only other recent television productions with similar qualifiers applied to the credits, all of in which both directors were credited on Wikipedia (as well as other sources), are the various live network musicals in the US and UK. SkyMark (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

EricLewan

RESOLVED

Ognevich has been verified as the correct spokesperson for Ukraine with an appropriate citation. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 00:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To editor EricLewan: I reverted your edit where you had replaced Pavlo Shylko with Zlata Ognevich. The former name looks to be supported by a citation whereas the latter does not. I don't know why you would make this sort of change but I want to reinforce a few points: first, use edit summaries to let other editors know why you're making a change. This is a collaborative project. Second, you need to provide proper citations for content you add. This is required by WP:V. Finally, I have warned you about partisanship in editing. Wikipedia requires you to be neutral and you might find it easier to refrain from editing about Ukraine as unrelated subjects won't bring into doubt your objectivity. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: It was officially announced that Zlata Ognevich will be the spokesperson of Ukraine in Eurovision 2017: https://vk.com/wall-139245847_1581. Pavlo Shylko is the official speaker of the contest, not the spokesperson of results nor the commentator. Please, check information in the official sources. Don't spread vandalism in Wikipedia. Thank you. ^{talk to me} 13:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@EricLewan: VK is self-published so it's not a reliable source and I can't tell if that post comes from Eurovision, officially. Further, the Google translation doesn't support what you're alleging. You can afford to wait for a responsible news source to publish this information to source your claim. Editing as you have is not acceptable. If you continue, we can take this to a drama board. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I have serious concerns regarding the editing activity of EricLewan and their behaviour towards other editors on Wikipedia. He recently accused myself of vandalism for removing the same content you are discussing in this thread. And not only that, they have made similar BLP edits without sourcing in the past. If this troublesome behaviour continues, then I would advise looking into WP:NEWBLPBAN, as that would be a preventative cure. Wes Wolf ^Talk 07:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: The post is from the official verified community of Eurovision in Ukraine. That doesn't matter anymore, though. I was the person who provided the most important information about this year's contest (logo, hosts, executive producer etc). But it doesn't matter since you ignore the rules of the free encyclopedia just because you don't like my actions here. I hope you'll be the person who'll change the name of Ukrainian spokesperson to Zlata Ognevich after the Grand Final, because I don't want to volunteer anymore, for people who doesn't respect it. Have a nice day and don't forget to watch the voting in the Grand Final. ^{talk to me} 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

To all those caught up in this mess, Динамо-фан has reintroduced Zlata Ognevich to the spokesperson table using a reliable source. We can consider this matter closed. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 00:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update

@Tuxipedia: looks like the source Динамо-фан used to reintroduced Zlata Ognevich is incorrect. That source was basing their information from the disputed VK social media website. It would appear that Pavlo Shylko, is the spokesperson, as listed in this reliable source. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Norway Lip Syncing

In the incidents section there is a lot of technical terms. I am guessing that Norway either lip synched or wanted to lip sync in the semi-finals and final. Which happened? Mobile mundo (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Old Kyiv debate

Why in this article city is called Kiev, if even the contest name is Kyiv 2017? https://eurovision.tv/participants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.249.1.213 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, read the box at the top of this page. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 23:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the FAQs at the top of this talk page, you would already know the answer - thus saving time posting this thread. But anyway, the reason is because of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). Wikipedia has strict rules on naming conventions, unfortunately, which are beyond our control as volunteer editors. Thank you to @Philaweb: for wording the reply better. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Multiple discussions on the scoreboard

There have been multiple threads being created lately all regarding the same issue on scoreboards, layout of them, and errors in the totals. So to keep things housed together, I'm merging all of the related topics together, so everyone can see what's going on, and maybe note an answer to a pondering question. Wes Wolf ^Talk 15:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Results tables

Thanks for the efforts of those who have entered all the information here. One small point. Almost everyone looking at the final resuls will want to see them in place order. This should be the default order. No one really cares about the draw order after the show is over. It can be listed, of course, but it shouldn't be the default sort order. 86.191.166.205 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined Unfortunately, this cannot be done. A prior consensus is to list all the tables in draw order. Each table does use the sorting function for each column, so that reader can decide upon themselves which information they wish to be placed in alphabetical or numerical order. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That consensus is mistaken. It may be based on a sample of people who have a specialist or in-depth interest in this event. I can assure you that the majority of ordinary readers coming to this article will first and foremost wish to see the results in place order. 86.191.166.205 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is not mistake. It is a consensus reached by the Wikipedia community. Your view is assuming that everyone wishes to view the tables in a specific way - yet that is just on your point of view. There is a manual of style which we need to follow, and that is what has being done in this and every other article. The tables show the participation, and the order in which they performed first. Any other details can be viewed by ascending or descending order based on the personal perspective and needs of each individual person - if they so choose. You are welcome to argue this for as long as you wish, but the style used will never be changed unless the Wikipedia policies change and the members of WikiProject Eurovision discuss changes to layout styles. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What Wes (as the owner and proprietor of all things Eurovision on wikipedia) means is that he and his acolytes who have locked the page and allow only themselves to edit have reached a consensus amongst themselves.85.14.123.179 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)MouseyWes

There is nothing stopping you from creating an account and joining WikiProject Eurovision to contribute to the discussions we have, but Wikipedia policy requires you do not make personal attacks against other editors. Calling members of the project "acolytes" is an instance of that policy's violation. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 21:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Tuxipedia: Don't feed the trolls, it only gives them satisfaction. Deny all recognition, as they soon get bored and move on. I take it as a compliment that these IPs think so highly about me and assume that I am some sort of "King of Wikipedia". They must have such a low self-esteem about themselves that they have to result to forms of attacks and cyber-bullying. But I am not afraid of those kind of people. These IPs fail to understand the concept of Wikipedia, what it entails, how it operates. And when things do not go their way, they cry victim, attack others to make them feel better. Nobody WP:OWN's anything. The fact the article is protected (not locked) they think I have the power to have protected it; they do not understand it is an admin who protects pages. So that IP is basically calling admins "acolytes"; not the wisest of things to do if they wish to continue editing. Admins wouldn't think twice about blocking their sorry arses. If these people took the time to read the policies set by the Wikipedia community, then they would understand why the likes of me and other experienced editors talk logic, while they look confused. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry arses"? A disgusting term. What a foul thing to call anybody or post on this site. That is an attach and cyber bullying if ever one has been seen on this site. And since "Wes Wolf" and "Wes Mouse" are not your name, who is the troll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.212.137 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

83.103.212.137, what I said is a figure of speech, and not an "attach" (I assume you meant attack). And Wes is short for Wesley. How I chose to show my signature is my preference, as long as it links to my user name is of importance - which it does. Anyway I have escalated matters further now, and sought intervention as there is clear evidence of long-term cyber-attacking from a couple of IPs aimed directly at myself - and this has gone on for 6 years. Receiving private threats from various IPs to harm me personally is unacceptable behaviour and a highly serious matter. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Another thing, at least I have the ball to post things and sign them with my user name. I do not have to be a coward and hide behind an IP number. Create an account and let's see if you have the balls to attack me with a user account, and not hiding like a wimp who prays on targeting the vulnerable, and gets neurotic kicks out of bullying. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is threatening and abusive language. Please will an administrator deal with this troll before any further abusive and personal attacks are made. Thank you.83.103.212.137 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove the 50/50 column in the split voting results?

I feel as though it is unnecessary to have the 50/50 column between the televoting/jury columns in the split results drop-down table. The 50/50 result is already displayed in the other tables and it just looks kinda messy. Should it be removed? --ThatJosh (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@ThatJosh:, this is something you should ideally be posting at WT:ESC, as its impact is far greater than just one article. Such proposal will require a consensus from the WikiProject Eurovision team, so that it can be reviewed, discussed, and rolled out across the spectrum if agreed upon. Although as this is the second year that both sets of points have been issued, then we should ideally be turning to the 2016 article, as everyone had discussed proposals on how to handle the what was then a new voting system. That article should be used as the basis and format/layout "guide". Wes Wolf ^Talk 13:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: The 2016 article didn't include a 50/50 column, I assume that for consistency it should be removed from the 2017 one? It's such an eyesore lmao --ThatJosh (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor ThatJosh: Post-2016 they were used. Bear with me a few minutes though, as I've not long since woken up. I was still awake 8 hours after the contest had ended (08:00 UK time), working my butt off on here and chasing around Wikipedia-space after a vandal. I'm not use to waking up at 14:30 UK time

. I'm sifting through the talk archives to just clarify the discussion outcome and to refresh my memory as it was 12 months ago when everyone had that "yikes what do we do now the voting has changed" panic. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@ThatJosh: Finally a cuppa coffee to start the day off - well afternoon I suppose really. The new scoreboard format was agreed prior to them being published on the article in 2016; and I can see that method has continued in 2017 (which is good to see). The split results had the 50/50 section removed from 2016, so with that in mind I would expect the same would happen in 2017. However, do we really need the collapsible split voting results in either of the 2016 or 2017 articles? The new split-result scoreboard does the exact same job, as what the collapsible table is doing. Does anyone else see them as a duplication of information? Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: Personally I feel that the collapsible table is a better way to display the divide in points from juries/televoting as having tons of columns with varying amounts of points in the main table is quite a lot of text to look at, and kinda messy imo. Just having the extra collapsible table with the jury & televote separated, for me, is the best way to do it. --ThatJosh (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Results: Sweden and Georgia

There's something amiss with the Swedish scores for SF1. The total recorded for the televote is 103. If you add up the scores as listed they come to 104. I've no idea which is right or where the error is. It also is recorded that the UK jury gave 1 point to Sweden and 1 point to Georgia. Clearly this isn't right, so maybe the 1 point for Sweden is an error, which does reduce their total to 103. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.14.123.179 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrected Sweden's Semi-Final 1 points verified with ESC site that Sweden got 1 point from UK Televote and 2 points from UK Jury. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Results: United Kingdom

In the table, it says that Portugal gave its 10 televote points to United Kingdom, but they actually gave it to Belgium. Here's the source [1] Albertdaniel222 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Verified and corrected Portugal's televote thanks @Albertdaniel222:. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 06:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving the Split votes and rankings

Why don't we move the table ranking the split voting currently located at the Scoreboard section to the section of Participating Countries? That table also lists the combined votes, which are already in the Participating Countries section, so why not consolidate it and combine them? Albertdaniel222 (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Albertdaniel222: Such change cannot be done just from this discussion alone. Layout and format changes to these annual articles need to be discussed at WT:ESC, as they bear a larger impact across all of the other annual contest pages that WikiProject Eurovision has under their scope. The current layout style (which you are commenting about) is based off this consensus debate, which resulted in these layout guides. However, I had only mentioned something similar yesterday, and currently working on opening a new RfC on the project talk page, so that members can review and discuss current layout styles, and put forward and proposals or changes. That is the right way to go about this sort of change. Wes Wolf ^Talk 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Results: Portugal

Something is wrong with the Portuguese scores as listed for SF1. The total is recorded as 194, yet if you add up the scores listed, they total 197. So either the scores are wrongly attributed or the total is wrongly recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.14.123.179 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It is merely a calculation error - we are human after all. The ESC site shows the total as being 197. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, are we? We are surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.77.26.160 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Considering the IP 213.77.26.160 has never taken part in any conversation on this talk page before, and has suddenly decided to come along and target every comment I have posted or contributed towards, is a very clear sign of WP:HARASS, WP:HOUND, and WP:BULLY. Be warned, as your actions are being investigated. And I am taking matters to a higher authority. Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Results: Netherlands

The scoreboard contains an error. The Netherlands did not receive 8 points in the televote from Latvia. Instead, it was Moldova that got 8 points from Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan42757 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tristan42757: Reviewed the source for the Latvian televote and updated the final results table to show Netherland 0 points and Moldova 8 points from Latvian televote. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 15:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Results: Slovenia

According to the grid, Slovenia's televote gave 8 points to Portugal and 8 points to Moldova. I doubt that very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.14.123.179 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@85.14.123.179 You are correct but it was jury votes that was out of wack not the televote. (White rows are Jury and Blue rows are Televote) Corrected the Semi-Final table to indicate Moldova 0 points from Slovenia's Jury and 8 points from Armenia's Jury. The televote from Slovenia was already correct with 8 points to Belgium. If anyone else spots anything wrong on the scoreboards please indicate if it is Semi-Final 1, Semi-Final 2 or Final so it is easier and quicker to get corrected. Thank you to everyone spotting any errors!

♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant to thread. Stick to discussing content. No more sniping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If the page wasn't locked, anyone who spots an error could simply fix it, rather than having to go to the bother of posting a begging request here and then waiting for one of the wiki elite to read it, then have them change it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a freely accessible site for anyone to edit. Apparently not. The wiki elites who own the Eurovision pages can make error after error, but God forbid anyone who's not in their inner circle should try and edit the page. That would never do. And is anyone else sick to death of "Wes" using the royal "we". We are certainly sick of it here.

Actually @213.77.26.160 (talk) the reason the page is semi-protected at this time is due to consistent vandalism and is only temporary. Vandalism mainly comes from unregistered users and other users that tend to create more than one account that " attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies."

This article actually has one of the lowest forms of protection an article can have. No one owns an article on Wikipedia nor do you have to be a member of an inner circle to edit a page. Case in point most of my focus is in anime and manga along with television related articles in general. I edit Eurovision articles from time to time because it is something that interests me.

If you would like to edit any semi-protected to contribute in a good way such as correcting mistakes, adding factual information that is properly sourced, making constructive edits, etc. please read this. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 12:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Alucard 16: thank you for putting across the Wikipedia rules so accurately. I thought I had recognised the IP before, and they have tripped up by bringing up "royal we". The same person hot blocked last time for bull;bullying and casting personal attacks. Clearly not learnt a thing from that block, by the looks of it either. I am not an owner of anything (other than my clothing, my house, my thoughts, my dignity). These people can throw as much insult and vulgar slurs at me as they want, but they will never bring me down as a bully is a weak person who finds it powerful to think they can try to bring down someone through words. They are nothing but disgusting parasites who need to get a grip of their own lives and work on their own problems, before attacking those of others. These are people who do not want or like that Wikipedia has rules in place to protect its integrity; and would rather it have no rules just to suit their own choices. If they don't like how Wikipedia operates, then they should take it up with the owners of Wikimedia. This talk page is about collaborating on an article, it is not a means to launch attacks on users. I find it flattering that they call me an "elite". But that is only their view; and they have no understanding of what is actually going on in my mind; nor will they ever know. And for the record, 213.77.26.160, making remarks that you will just alter the page when it is unprotected is a form of threat to disrupt Wikipedia for your own personal gain - so one could turn the tables and say you are now acting as dictator. But if you wish to make statements like that, then never expect to see the page have its protection lifted any time soon. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP address in question has made only four edits. There is no history of this editor making any of the edits that Wesley Wolf has stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.212.137 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

To IP:83.103.212.137 - people can IP hop, or use a proxy IP to mask their identity. Of course the IP has made 4 edits, but IPs in the same range have made similar attacks directed at myself for the last 6 years; and to the extent of sending me private death threats. You probably do not understand the seriousness of carrying out such act. Put yourself in my situation; what if it was you receiving threats, attacks, openly on here and via private from someone who changes IP? It is not nice. I have done nothing but cooperate with people on here, advise when necessary. The fact that I am passionate about Eurovision does not mean I am claiming ownership of anything. The fact people do not like receiving nice help, shows real disgust. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Final Results table

Please can the scores be listed in the order they were announced (ie starting with Sweden and ending with Ukraine) rather than alphabetically by country. This makes more sense.85.14.123.179 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order was the preferred choice of the community as far as I can remember. However, if it is any consolations, there are plans to open a new request for comment and a review of article formatting for these contest pages, via the WikiProject Eurovision in the next coming days. I'll take note of your suggestion and put it forward to the project members for careful consideration. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean your preferred choice as proprietor and owner of all things Eurovision on wikipedia. I'll wait for the page to be unlocked and then re-order it into voting order as that seems to be the preferred choice of wikipedia viewers and visitors, not those of the elite who take control of projects for their own edification. Interesting that the Semi Finals aren't listed in alphabetical order. So not a preferred choice at all in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.77.26.160 (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just checked the link provided by Wes Mouse or Wes Wolf or whatever we are calling ourselves this week, and there is nothing at all there about voting order vs alphabetical order. Nothing. So we are right in that we are simply having to accept his authority. We are sick of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.77.26.160 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP 213.77.26.160 (talk) those links Wes provided in this section are links to ways the wider community can discuss important changes that would affect a lot of articles. So what will be happening is there will be a discussion in regards to the format of Eurovision articles covering the formatting of all sixty two articles and things such as their results tables. To ensure the broadest discussion possible it will using the requests for comments method to ensure a broad consensus is reached. No one has authority over an article but as editors we all need to participate in the discussions. IP 213.77.26.160 (talk) keep in mind that the current format was achieved by a proactive discussion and when the protection is lifted. If you change the tables from alphabetical order to when each country presented the votes then it is possible that the edits could be reversed and the article protected again. Again the option to have the Final Results table presented in the way they were announced versus alphabetical order will be discussed. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the comments, and the fact this IP knows of my former name "Wesley Mouse", has just highlighted this IP is block evading. The wording is a signature style to one indefinitely blocked user that I know very well, and holds some sort of grudge against myself. Pathetic really that these folk have no life and get some neurotic kick out of bullying others. Once they have been through life and the ordeal of losing 4 family members to cancer in the space of 16 months, and still find the strength to pick themselves up and rebuild a life; then they will truly understand the meaning of life, of civility, and of respecting those around them. It is very rare I say this - but BULLIES get a life will ya! I'm stronger than you think. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Every contest results table from 1957-2015 is listed either in voting order or participant order. That's 59 contests. 2016 & 2017 are listed in alphabetical order. That's 2. Therefore the consensus and preferred choice of the community is that the results should be listed in voting order. Please make the change to bring the page into line with 59 of the 62 wikipedia articles concerning the individual Eurovision Song Contests. Please also refrain from your personal attacks.

I seem to recall, although not 100%, on some conversations in the past about the top row being in alphabetical order for one reason or another. But personally I disagree, and the top row should reflect the voting order - as has been the case on the article years that you pointed out. I'm all in favour of the top row reflecting the voting order, and wouldn't object to the 2016 and 2017 ones being brought into line with the rest of the annual pages. I would also propose that the column order possible be changed into "rank" order, and not running order. could potentially tie-in a lot of other ideas that have been mentioned over the years. And like I have said in the past, these are ideas that would be fundamental to put towards the RfC for layout style once one has been opened. WikiProject Eurovision is 14 years old, and a lot has changed in terms of the contest's since the project was created - and these modernised changed should be brought into how the project operates and the articles are foreseen to the average viewer. But we also need to take into account that the ultimate goal is for articles to be written and formatted to a WP:GA or WP:FA standard; and to do that means complying with Wikipedia's manual of style rules too. Failing to follow those would make the article alone fail overwhelmingly. Anyway, I've been nothing more but cooperative here; which has been noted by some users. I'll notify people when the RfC is open, so ideas and proposals can be discussed peacefully. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please can the scoring be placed in voting order? Can it also be done without personal attacks such as "get a life" or "sorry arses". That would be most preferable.94.140.90.45 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough, IP—enough. El_C 14:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @El C:. Admins are aware now of IP's attacking me and of the death threats. I've already been advised on the action to take should it happen again. And a couple of admins are monitoring in the event I receive another attack. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)