Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Ondas Award

{{GA|22:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)|topic=Music|page=1|oldid=632754863}}

{{dyktalk|26 November|2014|entry= ... that the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 won the International TV Award at the Ondas Awards, in Barcelona?}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

Participation map

The participation map shows that Hungary did not qualify to the final, but they did. András Kállay-Saunders performed his song "Running"? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

:Which map are you viewing? As I see it, Hungary are shown (in green) as qualified on the map. Wes Mᴥuse 00:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

::Grrr, I'm such a fucking idiot; I confused Hungary with Slovakia. Sorry, my bad. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Artists award should be artistic award

I happened to notice an inconsistency in the section on the Marcel Bezençon Awards. In the paragraph it talks about the Artistic Award, while the table calls it the Artists Award. I assume the table is incorrect, given the descriptions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Bezen%C3%A7on_Awards.

Puf (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:I assume you meant to have linked to Marcel Bezençon Awards, as the link you provided above didn't direct anywhere. And yes, it should read Artistic Award. It is merely a typo error, nothing major. Wes Mᴥuse 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidents section: comment from Lithuanian spokesperson

: Continuation of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/Archive 3#'Incidents' section?

Is it really necessary to make such a big deal about the comment from the Lithuanian spokesperson? Clearly the joke was not intended to be offensive and it doesn't seem like it really offended anyone, since it was a salute to Wurst, if anything. Besides, the host saying "Time to shave, I think not" is most likely due to the voting moving on to Austria following Lithuania, not a reproach at the comment. T.W. (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

: The coverage a particular incident or topic gets should be dependent on the level of coverage it gets in reliable sources as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS; not editor's personal views. It seems clear to me that this incident got more than enough coverage to justify the three to four lines it gets in the article. CT Cooper · talk 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ondas Award

It has been announced that the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final will be the recipient of an Ondas Award in the International TV category.[http://www.premiosondas.com/en/premiados.php Official Site], [http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2014/11/06/television/1415289364_745090.html El País] These annual awards for professionals in different fields of media are relevant and well-known in Spain. I'd like to include a line in the article but I don't know where it could go. Xelaxa (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Xelaxa}} I would recommend mentioning this at the current GA review for this article, as I'm not sure if it may bear an impact on the current review of the article. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Xelaxa}}, the GA review has now closed resulting in the article being promoted to Good Article status. Which means we will now have to discuss this matter here rather than via the GA review section. I think to include this information, is going to require a broad consensus from the project as a whole, as we wouldn't want to end up having the article demoted so soon after its GA promotion. Careful thought into how we would include this, where we would include it, and how it would be worded, is what we need to concentrate the discussion on here - as the next step for this article is potentially Featured Article Candidacy, so making sure we follow the FA criteria would be extremely wise, when discussing how we'd add this information. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|Wesley Mouse}}OK, thank you, so may I bring here a precedent that exists in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 article. The broadcast of the 2011 Contest was awarded the Rose d'Or award for Best Live Event. This is mentioned in the lead of the article only. I think we may need to think how to include information about accolades the contest receives as a tv production, without coming into conflict with the criteria you mention. Xelaxa (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Xelaxa}}, per WP:LEAD, we are only suppose to summarise in-brief writing, what is mentioned within the main body of the article in more detail. If between us we can come up with a decently worded prose, and determine whereabouts it would be suitable in the main article body - my guess would be either before or after the incidents section. And then in the lead we could add {{tq|"The 2014 Contest won [name of award] in the International Television Category at the Ondas Awards, in Spain"}}. The main body could start off {{tq|"The Eurovision Song Contest 2014 was presented with the [name of award] in the International Television Category, at the Ondas Awards, held in Spain on the [date]}}. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Found a way around this. I've included this into the "Other awards" section, with a detailed prose to explain what the awards are about and when this award was won - using the {{t|Awards table}} template. I'll add brief (citeless) info into the lead. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Wesley Mouse}}, I think the wording you propose is very clear (there is a small misunderstanding I will point later on), the {{t|Awards table}} template fits perfectly, and the solution you found is valid overall. However, I also think, regarding the inclusion of this into the "Other awards" section, there is a danger of mistaking different contexts. The Marcel Bezençon, OGAE, Barbara Dex awards are parallel awards in the context of the song contest itself: these are awards that purposedly exist for the competing entries. The accolades the contest gets as a tv production, like the Ondas Award, are related to the reception the contest gets as a tv broadcast. Whatever is the solution we adopt, I think it should be applied also to the 2011 Contest article and our project, generally, that's also why I wanted to bring the Rose d'Or example to our attention. Xelaxa (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::I corrected the small misunderstanding I referred to: The Ondas Awards ceremony will take place on 25 November, though the award recipients were announced yesterday. Xelaxa (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Xelaxa}} there would be no mistaking in context of the "other awards" section whatsoever. The main section title is pretty much self-explanatory - it covers all other awards not issued by the EBU themselves. Within that section are sub-sections for each respective awarding body, with a prose for each, to avoid "mistake in context". I don't feel the wording has any small misunderstanding, as I have followed procedure to make sure it cites sources whilst in my own words. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) - Oh it was the date, my bad.. Well spotted! Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|Wesley Mouse}} The prose is not "mistaking", but I still see a problem with content structure. You say the "other awards" section includes "all other awards not issued by the EBU themselves". I think that's too broad when we are talking about two very different aspects: the competition ESC consists of and its "extended world", on one hand, and the reception ESC gets as a broadcast, a product by itself, on the other. The awarding bodies that were already included in this section, exist due to the Eurovision Song Contest, and hand out awards annually to its competing entries. These are "unofficial" awards that are parallel to the contest itself. The Ondas Awards have no established link to the Eurovision Song Contest, they honour different tv works every year (among other fields), and this year it has happened they decided to honour the production of the 2014 ESC Grand Final (EBU itself and DR). It is a tangential event (vs. parallel). I actually think the accolades the contest receives have more to do with "ratings", as different aspects of "reception": "critical reception"/"accolades" and "ratings". Xelaxa (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the title of the section is "Other awards" which is an ambiguous title in itself. It basically says to the general viewer that the section is covering a topic on "other awards", whether that be unofficial awards Such as the Marcel Bezençon Awards, OGAE Poll Award, Barabara Dex Award, or other awards in connection to the contest itself. If it is going to be a case of "mistaking title identity", then that is easily resolved too - just add a prose to explain that several awards are issued for a variety of genres, from unofficial ones for artists, and professional ones for the show itself. Then we sub-divide the section so that it covers each respective awarding body. This then keeps everything concise enough for the FA criteria - something which I am starting to get very familiar with, and learning a lot about article structuring and what is expected from us in terms of Wikipedia. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

:I am surely not as knowledgeable about FA criteria, but I am convinced there are other possibilities that can resolve this, maybe in ways that are more concise and less ambiguous, and still meet the criteria. I think we can agree there is a clear distinction between unofficial awards closely linked to ESC that are issued in the ESC context every year, and professional accolades with no established ESC-connection that ESC may receive occasionally. Why not structure according to this very clear distinction? Why resort to a pre-existing section that dit not contemplate this and make it more miscellaneous? What if an ESC edition was particularly acclaimed as a TV production and received awards from a handful of awarding bodies? Would a sub-section for each of them be created, necessarily? In fact the {{t|Awards table}} you introduced is used to list awards that a certain work or professional receives from different awarding bodies. In articles about tv shows, there is often a "Reception" section that encompasses ratings, critical response and accolades, as in FA-Class article example Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series)#Reception. In the case of an awards ceremony telecast that received awards from other awarding bodies, it is resolved with a "Ratings and reception" sub-section: 86th Academy Awards#Ratings and reception. I bring these examples as possible inspirations. In our case, the information about ratings is a kind-of-orphaned line as the introduction of the "International broadcasts and voting". I tried to look up if there was any information about ratings in the article, but it was not easy to find, as I wasn't sure where it could be in the Contents structure. We could create a "Reception" sub-section under "International broadcasts", and I think the info about accolades for the broadcast would fit better here. I can come up with a proposal to reflect this. Xelaxa (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

::I believe that if something isn't broken, then it doesn't need fixing; therefore I have to strongly disagree with your suggestion that there maybe more way to be concise and less ambiguous. Like I pointed out, the title covers "other awards", irrespective of who the awards are connected to, they are still covering the topic of any "other awards" - which is then subsequently sub-divided into the respective awards. It would be overzealous to make things "less ambiguous" by giving each award a standalone section in their own right. It was established during the layout RfC a couple of years ago, via consensus, that it would be logical to amalgamate any thing to do with the receipt of an award into one topic title - which is the current title. At the end of the day, we are dealing with the subject matter of "awards", it does not matter what the award is about - they are still an award. To split them into sections of "unofficial" and "official" is just an obscure thing to do. People are intelligent enough to differentiate between an "unofficial award" and an "official award", even with them all housed into one subject title of "other awards". The fact that this section has mainly been used for OGAE etc does not bear relevance here, nor has it ever done. The reason the section is called "other awards", is because the main ward issued is to the winner of the Eurovision final itself. So we could not call this section "awards" as that would cause confusion to a reader who is unfamiliar about Eurovision. In regards to the ratings, it was suggested in the GA review to move this information to the broadcasting section, as it hold more due weight to that section. Placing it elsewhere would make it undue and irrelevant. I would not support giving this Ondas Awards a standalone section in its own right, and strongly feel its current location within the "other awards" section is sufficient and within due weight of its subject matter. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I do not suggest to move the information about ratings out of the "broadcasting section". On the contrary, I'm trying to suggest to move the info about the Ondas Awards there in a similar way, because I think it holds more due weight to that section, and create a "Ratings and reception" sub-section there where there wouldn't be any kind of "Ondas Awards" standalone title. I do not support a standalone section for the Ondas in its own right. On the contrary, I would strongly disagree, and in fact I think the Ondas Awards are given more weight than necessary in the current layout. The Ondas Awards do not have an established link with ESC like the other awards have, the concession of this award this year is just reflective of the reception the broadcast got, in this case the reception it got from a proffesional jury. The problem I see is not "official" vs "unofficial at all, it's "pararell events to ESC, closely linked to ESC" vs. "tangential event to ESC". Ratings, critical response, professional accolades for ESC as a tv show, aspects of the reception it gets as a tv show, were not contemplated in the layout RfC a couple of years ago. I would thank you if you could check the two examples I brought in my previous comment. Maybe they reflect what I'm thinking much better than my own words. Xelaxa (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

::::The Ondas Awards does not hold any due weight in the broadcasting section. That is all about the television networks who broadcast the Eurovision Song Contest. The receipt of an award based on the production of a show does has no bearing on that section whatsoever. And I'm sure many other project members would agree that the Ondas Award in its current "other awards" section is suitably and correctly placed. {{ping|Bilorv}} as the GA review, would you agree that the mention of receiving such award is right in the "other awards" section? How's about asking other users, such as {{U|BabbaQ}}, {{U|CT Cooper}}, {{U|AxG}}, or {{U|Pickette}} - in their opinion, do they feel its current location within the "other awards" section is correct or not? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::The opinion of other editors would be very welcome, thank you Wesley Mouse for asking for third opinions. To further explain my position: The candidates that opt for the Marcel Beçenzon, OGAE, Barbara Dex awards are exactly the same candidates that opt for the main award issued to the winner of ESC. These are "other awards" in relation to ESC competition in a very literal way. The inclusion of an award for ESC as a tv production from a body with no established connection to ESC, with its own standalone subsection for this awarding body, breaks this precedent logic and gives this awarding body more weight than necessary. The relevance of the information about this particular Ondas award ESC 2014 received, if there is such relevance, comes from the fact that this a reflection of the reception ESC 2014 Grand Final (we forgot this bit so far) got as a production, a broadcast in its final form. The information can be put in a proper context of "reception to the broadcast" elsewehere, without giving the particular awarding body more due weight than necessary with a standalone title that is reflected in the Content table. Section and sub-sections covering "Bradcast and reception" or "Reception and ratings", encompassing ratings, critical reception and accolades, are very common in Wikipedia articles with certified quality about tv shows of different genres. The current layout for ESC edition articles lacks an analogous space covering this field of interest, and this is a tv show, apart from a contest in its own. Information about the Ondas and other potential accolades for ESC 2014 as a tv production could be mentioned in such a section or sub-section without any need for standalone titles for particular awarding bodies. "Ondas Awards" is not by itself an established field of interest in relation to ESC, unlike "Marcel Bezençon Awards" , "OGAE" and "Barbara Dex Awards", and a standalone "Ondas Awards" title would not be expected. Xelaxa (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You see, {{U|Xelaxa}}, the dictionary definition of the word other is to refer to something that is different from, in additional to, or alternative of those specified. The dictionary definition of the word award is to refer to something that has granted an accolade for its merit achievement. The Marcel Bezençon Awards are awarded to an artists for their merit of achievement, and are an alternative to the main ESC winner's award. The OGAE Poll Award are awarded to an artist based on the opinion poll of OGAE club members - again in addition to the official ESC winner's trophy. The Barbara Dex Awards are a merit of achievement for an artist that wore the worst costume - again in addition to the main ESC winner's trophy. The Ondas Award has been given to the Eurovision Song Contest to show recognition for the production of the show - which again is covered by definition of the word "award" as it has been granted in merit of something, and is an alternative of those "awards" already mentioned in the section - thus is covered by the definition of the word "other". The fact that you are defining the term "other" in regards to being in relation of the ESC competition is over-definition and looking too deeply into the meaning of a word. Any general reader would see the section 'Other Awards' as being exactly that, of a topic covering "awards" that are different from, in addition to, or alternative of the main ESC Winners Award (also known as "other"). The article examples you provide in an earlier comment are not exactly prime examples, as they have no relation nor similarities to this subject matter. Those are relating to television series, of which "reception and ratings" would be relevant. Although a section in the parent article Eurovision Song Contest for "Reception, ratings and viewing figures" would hold more weight, and ultimately allow us to mention any awards that the show production has received over the years, as well as provide a list on annual global viewing figures - similar to how the parent article for the Brit Awards has (as seen at Brit Awards#Viewing figures). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:I would say that:

:#Including the Ondas Awards in the "Other Awards" section may be misleading, as the other awards there are all awards specific to the competition, rather than other bodies which have given awards to the competition.

:#Putting the Ondas Awards in a "Reception" section would not necessarily be helpful as it might not be where one would expect to find it.

:#The "195 million viewers" figure would fit better under a "Reception" section, but one should not be created just on that basis. It's still fine under "International broadcasts and voting". (Mildly tangentially, I did also suggest briefly in the GA review that ratings information could be expanded beyond that lone sentence. A larger paragraph discussing viewing figures would be more likely to require a "Reception" section than the short line currently existing.)

:So I'm fairly neutral on the subject, which is why I haven't contributed to the discussion before. Is there any chance a concise sentence or two could be added somewhere in the "Other Awards" section to show clearly that "these awards run parallel to the competition, but this one has been awarded to the competition"? Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|Bilorv}} Thank you very much. At this point, I would be satisfied if such a sentence was introduced in the "Other awards" section. {{ping|Wesley Mouse}} One of the examples I gave was not but a television series, but an awards ceremony (the 86th Academy Awards), which has a "Ratings and reception" section encompassing ratings and awards to the ceremony telecast. Anyway, I do think ESC can be treated as any other tv show in many aspects, because it is a tv show fundamentally. I like your idea for a "Reception, ratings and viewing figures" in the parent article. Xelaxa (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I support a sentence being included to differentiate between the award for the actual television show versus awards related to the contest for the time being. But if another section can be created that can better house this information as well as ratings information, then that should definitely be considered. Pickette (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::(Stupid internet connection logging me out whilst I was in mid-sentence) Anyhow, yes having a reception and rating section within the main parent article at Eurovision Song Contest would be a good idea, and at least could help to bring that article back to its former FA status. Plus we'd be able to expand on other awards that the contest has received over the years, plus show the annual viewing figures - which would then aid us on the annual articles when we make reference to such viewing statistics. As for a supporting sentence within the "other awards" section to help differentiate between the award for the actual television show versus awards related to the contest for the time being is also a good idea - and one that I had tried to say we should be doing - although I cannot think of how it would be best worded. If anyone has any suggestions for that, then I'd be more than happy for it to be added without hesitation. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion for a supporting sentence within the "other awards" section: {{tq|The Marcel Bezençon Awards, the OGAE voting poll and the Barbara Dex Awards are awards that were contested by the entries competing at the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, in addition to the main winner’s trophy. In contrast, the Ondas Awards have honoured the production of the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 itself in one of their categories.}}. Feel free to make any change you think is necessary or convenient. Xelaxa (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

:I like that wording, although I would like to clarify that such wording would not contravene the no original research guidelines. {{ping|CT Cooper}} as an established editor and administrator on Wikipedia - would such phrasing be safe? Or would we need to add the citations from each respective awards sub-section to provide verification? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

:: I would have thought a pretty simple factual statement of that nature will be a helpful clarifier for the reader and won't contravene WP:NOR. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Final running order screwed up

Could anybody with rollback privileges rollback the edits made by the guy with the IP as a name to the last edit by Wesley Mouse ASAP? He messed the running order and points up. Thanks!

--PootisHeavy (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

:{{Ping|PootisHeavy}} I've rolled back for you. Wes Mouse ✒ 06:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:5|one external link|5 external links}} on Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=756887891 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/20131125011529/http://escxtra.com:80/2013/11/bulgaria-not-entering-in-2014/ to http://escxtra.com/2013/11/bulgaria-not-entering-in-2014/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917001756/http://escxtra.com:80/2013/09/no-plans-to-return-under-current-system/ to http://escxtra.com/2013/09/no-plans-to-return-under-current-system/
Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://kundendienst.orf.at/programm/fernsehen/orf1/sc.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013806/http://www.tuner.be/2014/03/l%E2%80%99eurovision-bouscule-the-voice-belgique/ to http://www.tuner.be/2014/03/l%E2%80%99eurovision-bouscule-the-voice-belgique/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508042822/http://eurovision-georgia.ge/ViewVideo.aspx?VID=24023 to http://eurovision-georgia.ge/ViewVideo.aspx?VID=24023
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424001221/http://eurovision-georgia.ge/news-view/1161/en to http://eurovision-georgia.ge/news-view/1161/en