Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. 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 15

←

Archive 18

→

Project Scope

I'd like to think about refocusing the WikiProject closer to its roots. Over the past decade it has morphed into basically a WikiProject for all song festivals and anything remotely Eurovision-related, whether musical or not. There has been talk about the project solely focusing on contest and events directly related to the Eurovision Network, but it seems that either wasn't formalized or has since been forgotten. For example, I'd like us to drop the following contests from our umbrella that just use the format of Eurovision to some extent, but are completely unrelated: Cân i Gymru, Bala Turkvision Song Contest, Bundesvision Song Contest, Caribbean Song Festival, Intervision Song Contest, Pan Celtic Festival, Sopot International Song Festival, Turkvision Song Contest, and to a lesser extent ABU Song Festivals, ABU Radio Song Festival, and ABU TV Song Festival. There have been some past discussions about this if you look at the Project archives [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. While sharing templates and formatting between articles and contests is very helpful, I think we are in a position where we have very few editors who are interested in editing the other articles and are just Eurovision fans. For those who want to care for the other contests, there can be additional WikiProjects made. I've even seen WikiProjects solely for one musical artist that care for a couple dozen articles. We've bit off way more than we can chew here and it is leaving us with a bunch of stub articles with little hope to be improved with the assistance of this WikiProject. Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Grk1011: I agree, the WikiProject is called WikiProject Eurovision, not WikiProject Song Contests. It would make more sense to just cover Eurovision topics instead of random song contests that nobody really cares about. ○ [ Thalaja ] ○ 23:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that nobody cares about them, I just think there is very little overlap in editor interest, which makes project unity and collaboration rather difficult. Grk1011 (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I had suggested many years ago that the other 'non-Eurovision' contests be placed under a task force unit within this project. A task force is like a subdivision of which this project would be the "mothership" and the task force would adhere to this projects scope, until those contests grow enough to warrant their own stand-alone WikiProject. Having a task force would be a possitive interim meassure. P.S I'm liking the reinvented project. Wes Wolf ^Talk 09:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of fan media

In many articles connected to this project, Eurovision-centric fan media sites are often used for verification of facts. While they are and will remain fan-produced content, they can still qualify as reliable sources (some more, some less). To avoid future disputes over the reliability of such sources, I was hoping that we could pin down those are reliable and those are not, and create a pseudo-definitive list for reference. The following fan sites frequently come under my radar:

I have been made aware that Wiwibloggs and ESCToday have already been discussed and were found to be reliable. Eurovoix was also shortly under discussion in March, but seemingly without consensus. As per this article from Wiwibloggs, the site considers ESCToday, ESCKAZ, ESCXtra, and Eurovision Takeover to be "reputable fan media". This follows roughly my opinion, though I would want to add Eurovoix, Eurovisionworld (though only news articles), and ESCplus to that list. ESCape News and EuroVisionary have repeatedly fallen afoul of poor reporting, and The Eurovision Times is primarily a blog with little actual news, so I would consider none of these three reliable. Please share your thoughts so such a list can flourish. Lordtobi (✉) 16:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the previous consensus of support for Wiwibloggs_and_Eurovoix (2018) and ESCToday (2009), the latter link determined ESCKaz and Oikotimes to be semi-reliable and no consensus, respectively. Grk1011 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Only those sources are reliable, that refer to a primary source (with a link!) or mention the primary sources under their articles. Everything else is not reliable (enough) for an encyclopedia. Let us be very aware of the fact that we're working on an encyclopedia, and that Wikipedia is not a news reporting website or whatsoever. So the standards have to be very high. Hhl95 19:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC+2)

GA reassessment of Ester Peony

Ester Peony, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Voting history charts

Hi there everyone. I'd like to hear some opinions on the inclusion of voting history tables in Eurovision articles. In my opinion, such inclusion is original research since the points are added up by users rather than by reliable publishers (such as EBU etc) and they could thus be incorrect. And it's furthermore unsourced content in my opinion. Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest, which I have promoted to Featured Article status a few months ago, does not use such as a table per the reasons explained above. I'll ping @Dummelaksen: since he is involved in this too, having inserted a voting history chart which I've now reverted. I appreciate answers and please ping me. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a clear-cut original research issue. Users have been tabulating this data themselves for quite some time now and I've yet to find a reliable source that directly publishes voting history statistics. Overall though, aside from helping draw some conclusions about diaspora voting (also unsourced), etc., what is the purpose of the charts? I think now that we have our first Country in article with "Good" status, this issue has finally come to light and needs to be addressed. Grk1011 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it violates our original research guidelines and should be removed, no matter the article rating. It is a nice-to-know but ultimately trivia and not found in sources. If they are supposed to "expose" diaspora voting, they are also not encyclopedic content. Lordtobi (✉) 18:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks in Eurovsion articles

241 items Alexia Vassiliou, Andreas Constantinou (singer), Dimos Van Beke, Fani Polymeri, Hara Constantinou (singer), Haris Anastazio, Kyriakos Zympoulakis, Stavros & Constantina, Yiannis Savvidakis, Bandjo, Dorthe Andersen, Kenny Lübcke, Lotte Nilsson, Martin Loft, Thomas Thordarsson, Koivistolaiset, Ystävät, L'Héritage des Celtes, Chris Garden, Maxi Garden, Marianna Toli, Paschalis Arvanitidis, Robert Williams (Greek Singer), Wave (Greek Band), Csaba Szigeti, Fortuna (song), Eyjólfur Kristjánsson, Ingibjörg Stefánsdóttir, Védís Hervör, The Missing Passengers, Almog Kapach, Galit Bell, Gili & Galit, Lazy Bums, Liora, Moti Giladi & Sarai Tzuriel, Sarah'le Sharon, Shalom Olam, Mike Spiteri, Paul Giordimaina, Franklin Brown, Maxine (singer), Mrs. Einstein, David Eriksen, Laila Samuels, Pegasus (Norwegian band), Ronny Nilsen (musician), Stine Hole Ulla, The Hungry Hearts, Thomas Thörnholm, Tommy Nilsen (musician), Tonje Gjevjon, Ivan & Delfin, Mietek Szcześniak, Eva Hren, The Dolls (band), Barbara Berta, Carole Vinci, Daisy Auvray, Flavio Rizzello, Jane Bogaert, Madeleine Pascal, Piero and the MusicStars, Pino Gasparini, Rainy Day (artist), Yll Limani, Pero Te Extraño, Allan Kasuk, Eliis Pärna, Fred Krieger, Hugo Martin Maasikas, Imre Sooäär, Karl-Kristjan Kingi, Marie Vaigla, Marten Kuningas, Mihkel Mattisen, Rainer Olbri, Tiiu Kaarlõp, Timo Vendt, Adrien Szekeres, Fecó Balázs, György Ferenczi, János Karácsony, János Kóbor, Magna Cum Laude (band), Skorpió, Veca Janicsák, Template:Rlly, Justa Nobre, Pepel In Kri, 4M (band), Extra Nena, Ivan Krajač, Lado Leskovar, Pepel in Kri, Pepel in kri, Biggi Bachman, Enzo Guzman, Anne-Marie B, Robert Williams (Greek singer), Caline, Anne-Marie Besse, Annemieke Verdoorn, Sarah Bray, Sophie Garel, Pizmon Hozer, Geneva Palladium, Jean-Pierre Pastori, Neco (singer), Sarantapente kopelies, Themis Adamantidis, Burak Aydos, The SOS, The Short Waves, Başak Doğru, Coşkun Demir, Hakan Sıvacı, Mavi Yolcular, Mehmet Senpeç, Vedat Sakman, Balalaika (Ilanit song), Josip Genda, Pokora (Zorica Kondža & Josip Genda song), Nüket Duru, Datner & Kushnir, Cihan Okan, Emel Müftüoğlu, Grup Periyod, Grup Piramit, Harun Kolçak, Rüya Ersavcı, Seden Kutlubay, Yeşim & Ayşe, Galit Burg-Michael, Gili Netanel, Grup Pan, Can Ugurluer, Can Uğurluel, Klips, Rotehornhalle, Amnestia na neveru, Andrea Szulák, Muretut meelt ja südametuld, Árva reggel, Andromeda discotheque, Ömer Önder, Liora Fadlon, Stella Jones (artist), Zeynep Talu, Andrej Kosinskij, George Nussbaumer, Ja eto ja, Planet of Blue, Selma Çuhacı, Karl Madis, Rumal Noorkuu, Siiri Sisask, Grup Mistik, Loukas Hamatsos, 2 Quick Start, Andrej Karoli, Camila Raznovich, Jassi Zahharov, Joel De Luna, Manfred Witt, Romi Erlach, Jernej Verne, Jorge do Carmo, DJ Balloon, Bye Bye (Barbados song), Ad Hoc Orchestra, Piero Esteriore, Thomas Thordarson, The Ten Tenours, Andrés Esteche, Här stannar jag kvar, Olé Olé (Andrés Esteche song), Paradise (E-Type song), Tango! Tango!, Ivan and Delfin, Eyal Shachar, Pini Aaronbayev, Alfredo Panebianco, Higher Ground (Sanne Salomonsen song), Niklas Edberger, Tim Larsson, Tobias Lundgren, Ödet var min väg, Erdinç Tunç, Göksan Arman, Caribia hall, Vous, c'est nous, Rade Vrchakovski, Ainhoa Arbizu, Buenafuente (late night show), Null System, Jelena Markovic, Oliver Katic, Bruno Berberes, Daniel Barkman, Jörgen Ringqvist, Peter Kvint, Pontus Assarsson, Mirakel, Mystery (Dead by April), Revolutionsorkestern, Shout It Out (David Lindgren song), Why Am I Crying?, Why Start a Fire?, Bed on Fire, Copacabanana, Falling (State of Drama song), Skylone (song), Peter Horton (singer), OGAE Denmark, Almost Natural, Andres Kõpper, Anis Arumets, Anni Rahula, Laura Prits, Leemet Onno, Tomi Rahula, Urmas Jaarman, Andrea Gylfadóttir, Þórður Helgi Þórðarson, Kåre Magnus Bergh, Line Elvsåshagen, ESCXTRA.com, Aleksander Radić, Hans Pannecoucke, Stefano Terrazzino, Tabb (music producer), Romeo Lewis, Vid Valič, Christoffer Strandberg, Gyula Deák, Miklós Varga (singer), DJ Rudd, Portimão Arena, Vasco Palmeirim, Ognjen Amidžić

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC).

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Usage of the "withdrawn" field

Presently, we are using the "withdrawn" infobox field (and otherwise the wording "withdrawn" within articles) to indicate that a country did not participate in a contest after it had done so the year prior. This would suggest that participation in Eurovision is perpetual, and countries need to actively opt-out from a given contest to not take part in it. In reality, however, countries must be invited by the EBU (all full members are invited automatically) and then actively sign up to the contest every single year.

This becomes a problem sometimes. For example, the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 article states:

Montenegro had applied to take part in the contest on 4 December, but decided against participation and withdrew its name on 23 December ... Thus, in this edition, no country withdrew.

Apart from the prose-lining that announcement date = action date (the list of countries is usually announced in early December, but the first application deadline is in September), this statement suggests that Montenegro did withdraw but actually did not withdraw because it had not participated in 2010 either. Similarly concerning are 1996 and mid-noughties contests, where countries "withdrew" because they were relegated or failed to qualify a/k/a were barred from participating.

This is highly misleading (especially to readers who might be unaware of this situation) and this wording should either be abolished entirely or changed to make it say what it actually represents. Lordtobi (✉) 10:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I took "withdrew" to mean a country had committed, but later decided to not participate after already being on the list of participants. If a country is sitting out a year for whatever other reason, they just "did not participate". Grk1011 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the literal meaning, but the project uses "wthdrawn" when a country has for the first time not competed: Relegated countries "withdrew", non-qualified countries "withdrew", and dissolved countries "withdrew". What it's supposed to say is probably "non-returning countries" but then I still question their significance in the infobox (alongside "returning countries"). Lordtobi (✉) 06:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of National Selections in the Eurovision Song Contest

The article National Selections in the Eurovision Song Contest has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Not my nomination, but it seems we weren't notified of this discussion, so looping the project in. Grk1011 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Spokesperson background" column

Recently, user Anto475 has added a "Spokesperson background" column to the "Commentators and spokespersons" table for each country in contest article. While these additions are clearly in good faith, I think they are quite trivial and not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. In several cases, such as here, they make the table quite unwieldy. I have not removed them myself because I don't think just getting rid of stuff I don't like is a good way of going about things, but I think their inclusion should be questioned. dummelaksen (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I also find it to be trivial and not encyclopedic. Grk1011 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Anto475:, as they obviously put a lot of effort into finding and adding the information and might have something to add. dummelaksen (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I worked on collecting the information over a few weeks and decided to post it on Wikipedia as I felt it was interesting information related to the contest. I thought that it was of a similar level of importance as the spokesperson themselves. Having talked to some friends who are fans of the contest, I thought it merited finding out and posting the background of the voting presentations. I don't find them making the table unwieldly however I do agree that the Portuguese table is a bit clunky, although it was not me who extended certain rows across each other. anto475 22:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not really about whether it's interesting though, but is it encyclopedic? Additionally, finding sources will be tough. For an editor to just look at the background and self-identify it would be original research. There needs to be a referenced source that actually identifies each and every background. It is a lot of effort for very little value IMO. Grk1011 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Depending this, an mere accurate naming of landscape or background of each country had must guess see it before typing it also agree per dummelaksen's thoughts.Telex80 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Telex80

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Kvalifikacija za Millstreet#Requested move 16 December 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Grk1011 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Song contest entry" infobox

I think there should be support for Turkvision entries on the "song contest entry" infobox. Other Eurovision templates have been modified to support Turkvision using a "contest" parameter, but this one hasn't. This was suggested in 2017 but never happened. dummelaksen (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We still haven't really decided if that contest should even be under our umbrella: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_20#Project_Scope. Other than being based on Eurovision, it's completely unrelated. Are we Wikiproject Eurovision or Song Contests? Actual question.. Grk1011 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that. dummelaksen (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the template is limited to our WikiProject, though. It's {{Infobox song contest entry}}, which should be able to cover any song contest. Lordtobi (✉) 18:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We made the template though and it's based on our layout and needs. It was renamed with the following move comment in 2015: "Moving to a more universal name that can be used across all Eurovision-related contests, per project discussion". Grk1011 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eurovision Asia Song Contest

Template:Eurovision Asia Song Contest has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. dummelaksen (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest

Template:UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. dummelaksen (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

In addition to watch-listing Eurovision Song Contest 2021 I highly advise keeping an eye on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 please. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Editors on this WikiProject may be interested in the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Eurovision Song Contest. It's not at all clear what this recently created article represents, and whether it has anything to do with the potential alternative Eurovision contest talked about in this BBC article [6], for example. If anyone here can shed any light and contribute to the AfD discussion, it would be appreciated. Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like that is an online song contest held by ESC fans on the internet. It definitely does not belong on wikipedia, that's for sure. This is why sites like Fandom exist. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 17:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Tracklists

Many articles for Eurovision editions that had records with the competing songs released include tracklists of these records. These are generally not sourced, but more importantly are just copies of the list(s) of participating countries; they only include the country name, artist, and song name. The only difference are the added song lengths and the list being sorted alphabetically by country. That begs the question, do we really need the song lengths of the studio versions of the songs and, in turn, the tracklists as a whole? To me, these are just redundancies and a waste of space. Thoughts? IceWelder [✉] 19:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that that level of detail isn't really necessary. A brief description that says something like an album featuring all the songs from the competition was released and charted in x countries, etc. is probably enough. Grk1011 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I also find them quite redundant, and most of the songs are about the same length anyway. I would still mention any extra songs (applicable for 2014, 2016, 2017) and the fact that it's a double CD (JESC excluded). The chart performance tables are valuable and should be kept. — Andreyyshore T C 08:01, 31 Mar 2020 (UTC)

"Non-returning" on the infoboxes is confusing

Look, I know that this has previously been discussed, but I'd like to appeal to this decision made to change "Withdrawing" to "Non-returning".

"Non-returning" is confusing. It sounds like you should list every country that has participated in the past, so countries like Andorra, Luxembourg, Monaco, Morocco, Slovakia and Turkey who have all left the contest years prior. Having "Returning countries" and then "Non-returning countries" makes it seem more like this.

I think "Withdrawing" was fine. It was always like this and it always made sense. When you participate in the contest one year, but then you don't in the next, you "leave" the contest.

The definition of "Withdraw" according to Google is: 1. remove or take away (something) from a particular place or position.

2. leave or cause to leave a place or situation.

If you were to spell out in full what it means for a country to have participated one year but left the next, then it would be: "Countries that participated last year but not this year", but there is no one word for this other than "Withdrawing". Sure Hungary might not have ever signed up to participate in ESC 2020, but they still decided to "leave" ESC.

Of all the ESC fans I know who have noticed this change, all of them have told me that "Non-returning" sounds confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris Odi (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The definition you are displaying here already shows that withdrawing is something that has to be actively performed. However, in order to not participate in Eurovision, there is nothing a broadcaster actually has to do: Since participation in the Eurovision Song Contest (or any other Eurovision event) is not perpetual, they just do not pick up on the invitation sent by the EBU. Even when following your reasoning that the broadcaster 'still decided to "leave" ESC', they would not have withdrawn from the individual contest.

Furthermore, in the scope of the infobox and the individual edition articles, "non-returning" is the inverse of "returning", where "returning" meaning "did not participate the year prior but did so this year" has "non-returning" mean "participated the year prior but did not do so this year". If you're saying that "non-returning" could potentially include all countries that at some point participated, "returning" could just as well include all countries participating, as they did return after also participating the year prior. If the meaning of "returning" is unclear in this context, this is what has to be amended. In theory, we could add {{abbr}} tags to both (see sandbox testcases).

Lastly, this field is also used to list countries that were barred from participating, be it 1996's pre-qualification that was not broadcast, the various relegation-based absences between 1997 and 2003, or Romania being disqualified in 2016 due to its debt with the EBU. In none of these case was it the broadcasters' doing (or even choice) that led to them not participating, and they absolutely did not "withdraw".

For these reasons, the problem regarding "withdrawn" was discussed at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020#"withdrew", resulting in the consensus for "non-returning" (proposed by Alucard 16). IceWelder [✉] 11:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the term "Withdrawing" was a straight forward word that did not require any explanation. Now that the decision has been made to use the term "Non-returning" it has caused confusion and probably should at least use {{abbr}} tags as shown in the sandbox because the term alone needs a proper explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris Odi (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Completely disagree. We had to defend the term "withdrawing" continuously throughout the years. The only people who understood what it meant were mainly Eurovision fans. It was becoming difficult to move articles through Wiki quality reviews. After a thorough discussion with many people providing input, we made the change to non-returning. As Ice stated earlier, you can't withdraw from Eurovision if you never said you were in it to begin with. That's just not the definition of withdraw. Grk1011 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Well then surely you'd agree that the term "Non-returning" lacks a proper definition and therefore should use {{abbr}} tags as shown in the sandbox so as not to cause any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris Odi (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I would, in theory, not be opposed to the idea of either adding a short explanation via {{abbr}} (a wording is proposed in the sandbox) or refining the term "returning". This needs wider consensus, though. IceWelder [✉] 10:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Categories have been nominated for renaming

Category:Albanian Eurovision Song Contest entrants, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Please note that all categories within Category:Eurovision_Song_Contest_entrants_by_country are also included in this request. Grk1011 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Points table

Anyone have thoughts on this table? It was just added and I'm unsure how I feel about it. Grk1011 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Potentially violates WP:NOTSTATS – doesn't really give any useful insight to the reader as points don't mean much outside of the context of each individual contest. If the reader is really interested in the points, they can already find them in the country in contest by year articles. dummelaksen (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like the detail of that table isn't really necessary. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 01:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The table allows the reader to see Israeli voting patterns, such as Regional bloc voting. I couldn't find a place where this information was easily visible and accessible. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest

Template:Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Grk1011 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I nominated this for deletion. Please click the link for its deletion entry and add any additional comments (for or against) if you have any. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to bump this because no one has nominated keeping it yet (which I am currently writing on). We go through this every so often, such as with Suntribe, so it's important that it's important to realise why we have to keep this. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Country navboxes

Does anyone have any opinions on the the "Country in ESC" navbox templates? For example Template:Austria_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest where it has things struck out, bolded, italicized, etc. These are relatively new changes. When looking at the participation years, some links go to the Country's page, while others go to the regular contest page. In the song and artist subsections, there are years interspersed. The point of a navbox is navigation, but these seem to have morphed into a haphazard summary of the participation. Grk1011 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As seen in [7] many of the "Country by Year" Articles for Austria are missing, and therefor redirected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deancarmeli (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Melodifestivalen peer review

Hi all! I noticed that Melodifestivalen, a Featured Article, is up for a peer review. It's been 13 years since it was promoted to FA, so there are likely changes that will need to be made as a result of the review. I will try to address some of the concerns that arise, however, we will probably need a group effort to ensure that this stays as a Featured Article. Link here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Melodifestivalen/archive2. Grk1011 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Increasing width of result columns in Contestants tables

I think that the width of the results columns in the "Contestants" section of the country pages should be increased to 55 (or more) from 50, turning this:

Year	Artist	Language	Song	Final	Points	Semi	Points
1993	Barbara Dex	Dutch	"Iemand als jij"	25 ◁	3	Kvalifikacija za Millstreet

into this:

Year	Artist	Language	Song	Final	Points	Semi	Points
1993	Barbara Dex	Dutch	"Iemand als jij"	25 ◁	3	Kvalifikacija za Millstreet

so that every contest will hod a single row. Deancarmeli (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the current formatting. Doesn't each contest already only take up one row? Grk1011 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Deancarmeli is talking about how the text wraps if the columns are too small. On smaller screens, "Kvalifikacija za Millstreet" appears in the table with "Millstreet" on a new line. dummelaksen (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For me, it only goes to the second line once the column headers are condensed as much as possible. Would this change that? Grk1011 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It only makes a difference for me if I zoom out a bit. So I'm gathering that it wouldn't make a difference for most users. Personally I'm against the change as more often than not it's the artist and song headers that have line breaks, and increasing the results width would give those columns less space and would create more line breaks than it would eliminate. dummelaksen (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dummelaksen: Do you know of any such example, where the artist or song headers fill their cells? Deancarmeli (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Deancarmeli: Greece is a good example. dummelaksen (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dummelaksen: Actually, as I see it, the only 3 broken rows for Greece are 1993, 2005 and 2007, all fixed by my proposal with no new line breaks. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Deancarmeli: as I mentioned earlier, it depends on the screen size. On my 11-inch screen, 1974, 1977, 1993, 1996 and 2013 are all broken, but 2005 and 2007 are not. Increasing the width to 55px would break 2011 on my screen without unbreaking 1993. There's no correct or incorrect screen size so it's really not worth trying to find a goldilocks column width to have the fewest line breaks when line breaks are purely a matter of aesthetics and don't measurably affect the quality of the article. dummelaksen (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging boxes in tables

I see that links are removed from information that had a link to it previously in the page, but there aren't many things that takes the fun away from reading Wikipedia other than having to look for a link to an article you want to reach instead of just clicking its name. As a compromise, i think that at the vey least, when the subject is two adjacent cells in a table, they should be merged if possible. It is easier on the eyes too, in my opinion.
Example:

Year	Artist	Language	Title	Final	Points	Semi	Points
1966	Raphael	Spanish	"Yo soy aquél"	7	9	No semi-finals
1967	Raphael	Spanish	"Hablemos del amor"	6	9	No semi-finals

Should become:

Year	Artist	Language	Title	Final	Points	Semi	Points
1966	Raphael	Spanish	"Yo soy aquél"	7	9	No semi-finals
1967	Raphael	Spanish	"Hablemos del amor"	6	9	No semi-finals

Deancarmeli (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes the tables difficult to read when trying to read across. The benefit you are talking about is also lost when there is a different artist in between and the subsequent name is still not linked. Grk1011 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this would cause more aesthetic problems than it solves, especially since the language column would not be merged. (I instead believe that the re-linking policy should be changed to allow repeat links, if not everywhere then at least in tables.) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 18:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Years in bold

Hi there! I recently noticed that a user has formatted the table in Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest differently, so that the years are shown in bold as opposed to what the article looks like now. That bold is very unnecessary and it destroys the aesthetic of the table. I see it was implemented in several other articles, such as Germany's. We haven't discusses this here, and I really am against it. Thoughts? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer no bolding. We should also think about how we want to format 2020 in that column (is it small? italics? w/ hatnote?). Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the way the years look now in Romania's article is just fine. We don't need any further emphasis for the cancelled edition (as wel already have the green color). Also, the formatting in the "Year" column on the commentators section should also be the same as in the contestants one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a rationale for not including the "non participating years" as rows? I see that those are not in the Romania table but are on some of the other pages. We'll need to straighten out all of these formatting issues ASAP. Currently Romania is our only country in ESC article with Featured List status (meaning, importantly, that outside comment was given on the tables). Based on that, I'm inclined to support @Cartoon network freak: taking the lead on the table formatting unless someone else can explain why the other options are better? Grk1011 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it's a list article, I don't see why there would be a need for empty rows that don't list any entry. The table would look a lot nicer without them without losing any information.

With regard to the bold row headers, I don't have any preference for bold/non-bold but I agree that there's no need for a special kind of row header for non-participating years. It just makes the table more complex without any real benefit. dummelaksen (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As a simple reader, I find it much nicer to have empty rows for the years of non-participation. That way you can easily see which years the country was absent. Removing them makes it easy to miss, and it just feels unnecessary not to include the years of non-participation 83.248.200.89 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Grk1011: and 83.248.200.89 that "non participating years" should be featured in the list, since they visualize information about the country's participation in the contest. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn't have a set opinion on this and was just looking to start a conversation. Having "did not participate" is good for the casual reader to quickly see that they didn't participate, but it creates a maintenance issue over time as the tables can quickly become out of date, especially for countries that haven't participated in many years. For example, will people remember to edit Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest every year? From a sourcing perspective, I think it's easy to find a source for a participation, but when was the last time there was a source each year for countries that aren't in it? I'm concerned about wp:synthesis. Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Morocco is a unique case, but a row can be added such as:

!scope="row"|{{center|{{Escyr|1981}}-{{Escyr|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}}} 
 |colspan=5 align=center|''Did non participate''

to give us:

Year	Artist	Language	Title	Final	Points
1980	Samira Bensaïd	Arabic	"Bitaqat Hub" (بطاقة حب)	18	7
1981-2024	Did non participate

I also agree that the non-participating years should be included in the table. And I think the use of the {{CURRENTYEAR}} template is a great idea for special cases such as Morocco. It is just that I am trying hard to think of an answer to the issue with wp:synthesis, but I really can't think of a solution, which is a shame really because showing on the table that a country hasn't participated in the contest for many years is very useful information to simple readers. I personally disagree with certain aspects of wp:synthesis purely because of the issues that can arise like this one, but that's not really a discussion for here now is it. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 05:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For Morocco, I believe that a simple reference to [8], where the line "Morocco participated in the Eurovision Song Contest for the one and only time in 1980." should suffice.
In other cases, such as Israel's 1980 withdrawal per example, a reference to [9] that states that "...the defending champion decided not to participate..." is an information explicitly stated by a reliable source, and such can be added to its table. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that completely. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 11:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For me it comes down to "what is the point of the table"? The section is titled "contestants" and that's really all it's intended to show. As a casual reader, why would you want to know what years a country did not participate? Is that actually something readers seek out? As an editor, I'm not really sure I can understand what pure readers are looking for. Grk1011 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For the casual reader, it was great to see the years in which a country did not send a contestant. Personally I think showing that still fits under the title "contestants", as it lets the reader know "ah I see the country didn't send a contestant in XXXX", whereas now it just looks like that some years are randomly missing from the table. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 02:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Aris Odi: The contestant tables more or less serve as a timeline of that country's participation in Eurovision. I thought it was very useful to have years of non-participation included in the table as well, so it is 'visually' clear in which years a country did not participate. Of course, this is also stated in the prose of the article, but saying "Country X did not participate in 19XX and 20XX" does not tell us anything about which entry preceded the country's withdrawal (maybe it was a bad result), or which entry came after it returned (maybe it had a successful comeback).

As a compromise, I think it would be best to only display years of non-participation in between years in which the country did participate, as to fill up the gaps. I think it looks a bit awkward if the table goes from e.g. 1990 to 1992, which indeed looks as if years are missing. The years since the last participation of inactive countries (Turkey, Slovakia, Morocco etc.) could be left out in my opinion. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 08:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That's definitely easier to add references for as there will be sources that mention any return or absence. Grk1011 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the compromise suggested by @Ætoms:. As a reader, I find the missing lines to show incomplete information, and they make the tables look less credible. I would have preferred to add to the the tables the years since the country last participated, but the years between participations are of greater importance in my opinion. Deancarmeli (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also a question of how that would be formatted. For example if it's multi-year, why would just the beginning and end years to be linked? "Did not participate from 1999 to 2011". Also, I'm concerned a bit about WP:EASTEREGG, as the "year" link goes to a contest page (but also shouldn't it go to the country in page since these articles are a list of participations?). Grk1011 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I've always found it easier to navigate when the "year" link goes to the contest page. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 02:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Does the average reader expect that to be the link though? I'm not talking about the row labels though, but the linking in the year range. Grk1011 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the average reader does indeed expect that to be the link, considering I was once an average reader myself. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Aris Odi:. Years should always link to contest pages. Country by year pages should be linked to country names in contest by year pages, and maybe to a new template that will show participation (in addition to the current one, that will link only to the contest themselves. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:EASTEREGG, should we potentially rename that column "contest" then instead of "year"? Grk1011 (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to this suggestion. Deancarmeli (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really see how changing "contest" to "year" really changes anything. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

However, I will add that I don't really have an objection to that change. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 03:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding "medals" to tables

for example, in 2019, changing this table:

Draw	Country	Artist	Song	Language(s)	Place	Points
05	Russia	Sergey Lazarev	"Scream"	English	3	370
12	Netherlands	Duncan Laurence	"Arcade"	English	1	498
22	Italy	Mahmood	"Soldi"	Italian^[a]	2	472
24	Switzerland	Luca Hänni	"She Got Me"	English	4	364

Into this:

Draw	Country	Artist	Song	Language(s)	Place	Points
05	Russia	Sergey Lazarev	"Scream"	English		370
12	Netherlands	Duncan Laurence	"Arcade"	English		498
22	Italy	Mahmood	"Soldi"	Italian^[b]		472
24	Switzerland	Luca Hänni	"She Got Me"	English	4	364

This will still keep the winner highlighted, while shinning a light on the 2nd and 3rd places. This doesn't beak the sortability of the table. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Edited. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes

^ Contains two lines in Arabic.
^ Contains two lines in Arabic.

Seems unnecessary to me. The change is only cosmetic (the gold medal is even barely visible) and very small; it does not add any highlighting that would be beneficial to the reader or article as an encyclopedic piece. IceWelder [✉] 11:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with IceWelder above, it's unnecessary. This is unlike in sporting event were they get gold, silver and bronze medals, only the winner in ESC events is actually awarded something. -- AxG / ✉ 11:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that I don't think it adds much and sort of makes the column more difficult to read at a glance. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this might also violate WP:ICONDECORATION, and that wouldn't be the first time this project has done so. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:19, 04 May 2020 (UTC)

"Worst result" field

There doesn't seem to be a project-wide consensus as to what counts as the worst result when semi-finals are involved. Most articles, like Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest, count any last-place as the country's worst result, and ignore NQs if the country didn't come last in the semi-final. I don't think this makes sense, as common sense would dictate that not making it to the final is worse than being in the final and happening to come last. I think the worst result field should be changed to prioritise non-qualifications over last-place finishes. dummelaksen (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it typically counts the semis. The complication is when a country is "last" in both where the final was pre-semis. Is one better than the other? Grk1011 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. In that case, should the worst result be nominal or relative? Supposing a country had never failed to qualify or come last in the final, its worst result as given in the field would be the numerically lowest place it got. But then is it fair to say coming 12th out of 26 is worse than coming 11th out of 12? So I'd say if it's nominal then it should always be nominal, and as a non-last NQ is further down the imaginary leaderboard than a grand-final last-place, it should count as worse. I wouldn't be opposed to making it relative (i.e. 11th out of 12 is worse than 12th out 26 etc.), which would make more intuitive sense, but that's probably WP:OR. dummelaksen (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the entire "worst result" determination is OR. "Best" is objective, since it's always the highest position. There's no objective way to determine "worst". There exist logical schemes I would use if this were a more personal project, but this isn't. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:59, 02 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not of any real use to the reader either, so I'd be okay if it was removed entirely. dummelaksen (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's a nice information for the reader to have. The Problem could be addressed by splitting this section into two sub-sections: Worst Finals result and Worst Semi-finals result. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

KarasuGamma and Dummelaksen make good points. The fact that we need to have a discussion to figure out what "worst result" means is a very good indication that the field is WP:OR. I now believe that we should remove it. Grk1011 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Having given it further thought, I also support removing the worst result field. We should always think about what the point of including any information on the encyclopaedia is and what the reader would take away from it, and the only point I can think of is to assign a value judgement to a result, which violates WP:NEUTRAL.

@Deancarmeli: while I agree it would be nice information for the reader to have elsewhere (like a fandom wiki, trivia book etc.), that doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in this particular encyclopaedia, and for reasons I've already gone into, I don't think it belongs here, even if it is interesting. dummelaksen (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start an RfC on this, since this would be a widespread change and three of us agreeing might not be a strong enough consensus. (Although I do think we'd be justified in just making a WP:BOLD change here.) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:43, 03 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of removal. Since the consensus, albeit limited, is unanimous, I think we can go ahead boldly. IceWelder [✉] 11:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them all. If this change holds, perhaps the "Worst"/"ESC worst" field should be removed entirely from {{Infobox song contest country}} (although that might pose issues if the other song contests' editors disagree). —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:04, 04 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That's "our" infobox and this project encompasses all of the other contests that use it, so this talk page is the venue to discuss the removal on those pages as well. Grk1011 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure of the scope, since some of them are not at all Eurovision projects. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 23:37, 04 May 2020 (UTC)

"Country in contest" contestants table format

Per the earlier discussion, the "country in contest" articles have been changed to be inspired by the good article Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest. I'm absolutely in favour of this as thanks to @Cartoon network freak: it's one of the best articles in the WikiProject.

However, I don't think the symbols for 1st/2nd/3rd place finishes etc. actually improve the articles. Per MOS:COLOR, colour shouldn't be the only way information is conveyed in an article, and if it is, symbols are necessary for people who use screen readers (which is why I followed Cartoon network freak's example and put symbols next to every last place finish, as that information was otherwise only conveyed with colour). The fact that a country finished 1st etc. and that the entry was withdrawn or disqualified isn't only conveyed in colour, as the placements and circumstances of withdrawal are written next to the entry. I don't think screenreaders have any use for the symbols as the readers would be able to read the number "1" or the word "withdrawn".

I apologise for unilaterally changing the articles without first discussing this. I'll also ping @Grk1011: he was the one who pointed this out to me. dummelaksen (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I now support the change to the green color with the updated key "Entry selected but did not compete", however I would prefer we not use "w" is the symbol because of the "withdrawn" word choice issues we face. There also seems to be some sorting issues with the "small text" formatting of the 2020 link. I think the "Contest canceled" is also better than just "Canceled" because I think the latter is too vague. I also think we should be updating the keys so that they do not include things not in the table. For instance if a country has never placed first, we don't need to show the color for first in the key. Grk1011 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. I only chose "W" because I couldn't see an alternative at the time. I say we should replace the small text 2020 with an ordinary header as it's just simpler and doesn't cause the sorting issues, and the small text version doesn't add anything to the article. dummelaksen (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Light pastel colours should be used, that blue and green need to be revised. -- AxG / ✉ 22:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@AxG:, do you have a suggestion? Grk1011 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Colours like the below, which have been taken from ESC scoreboards to indicate 50% jury and televote or 100% jury vote, these colours decided in one of the archives here. -- AxG / ✉ 21:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Text Text Text	Text Text Text
Text Text Text	Text Text Text

Thanks @AxG: I don't see any reason not to use the lighter colours. dummelaksen (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! It looks like we can just use the pastel green then since Dummelaksen figured out an appropriate encompassing wording for the key description. Grk1011 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the use of the top right color, in accordance with the article about Romania. I know I have protanomaly, but surely these colors must look way too similar to other people as well. — Andreyyshore T C 00:11, 25 Mar 2020 (UTC)

I also support the use of the top right colour. It looks more appealing to the eye than the top left one. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 05:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think #EFA4A9 would be a good replacement for the current last-place colour, #FE8080. It's already used on the ESC scoreboards like along with the pastel green and blue. dummelaksen (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Text Text Text	Text Text Text

I prefer the current last place colour (#FE8080). Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 07:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Same. It's soft enough and I have no difficulty reading the text. — Andreyyshore T C 07:10, 31 Mar 2020 (UTC)

I know this is both late and tangential, but for example boxes like these, I would suggest either changing the Text option or including a fourth one; I have "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" enabled under Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance, so none of those boxes show a proper blue link. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 02:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Commentators (or lack thereof), particularly regarding Israel.

Looking over pages that need general clean-up. One that strikes me as being in need of expanding and clarifying is the Israel page, at least in regards to the commentators section. There are two commentators listed pre-2018, but while the one mentioned for 1979 is credited on the year page as well (although the IBA recording on YouTube has no commentary), the commentator mentioned for 1993 was the radio commentator, and there was no TV commentator for 1993. On the other hand, for virtually every year between 1973 and 2017, there are Israeli radio commentators mentioned on the year pages that aren't mentioned at all on the Israel page. This strikes me as odd, since most country pages include both the TV and (when applicable) radio commentators for each year. Would anyone be able to get on that? I haven't been great at figuring that template out so I wouldn't necessarily be the best person for the job, but I'd be happy to at least assist.

I also wanted to gauge how much we add about contest broadcasts prior to a country joining Eurovision full-time, mostly in regards to the Central and Eastern European countries that joined in the mid-90s but a few others as well. There are some pages where pre-participation broadcasts are noted (Greece, Portugal, Turkey, North Macedonia) but it's a little inconsistent. I've done some digging and these are all the ones that haven't been noted yet on the country pages.

Albania - 2003 (TVSH)
Armenia - 2003 (Armenia TV)
Belarus - 2001 (BT)
Bulgaria - 1968 (BT), 1990 (probably BT)
Estonia - 1993 (ETV)
Greece - 1970 (EIRT)
Hungary - 1966 (RTV), 1968 (MTV), 1969 (MTV), 1978 (presumably MTV), 1986 (MTV), 1987 (MTV), 1990 (MTV1), 1992 (MTV)
Israel - 1972 (presumably IBA)
Morocco - 1966 (SNRT), 1969 (SNRT), 1978 (presumably SNRT)
Poland - 1966 (TP), 1968 (TVP), 1969 (TVP), 1970 (TVP), 1978 (presumably TVP), 1985 (TVP), 1987 (TVP), 1990 (presumably TVP), 1991 (TVP1), 1992 (TVP), 1993 (TVP)
Romania - 1966 (TVR), 1968 (TVR1), 1969 (TVR1), 1979 (Programmul 2), 1990 (presumably TVR), 1993 (TVR2)
Russia - 1993 (RTR)
San Marino - 2007 (presumably SMRTV)

Hungary and Slovakia's pre-1994 broadcasts are noted on their pages. Interestingly, there's also at least one reverse example: Iceland's page claims their first commentary was in 1970, and they aren't listed on the 1970 page. I'm excited that I finally found this community as there's a lot of stuff I'm curious about, and I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about this.--BugsFan17 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@BugsFan17: Hi, and welcome to the community! I can't say I'm all that au fait with all the commentator information that exists across the various articles and how they sync up. I have noticed however that in a lot of cases these are not very well referenced, and while I personally don't question the veracity of the information I certainly believe that we should better reference these, especially for countries that did not participate. Case in point, I recently cleaned up the 1990 contest article, because while the host Helga Vlahović did mention a bunch of countries in Asia, Eastern Europe and the Americas that were broadcasting the show at the start of the show I didn't feel like these could be included in the actual commentator section as the information even related to which broadcaster was involved wasn't there.
If you are able to find reliable sources for every instance above where they broadcast the show, then definitely feel free to add this information to the relevant articles; perhaps looking back through broadcaster's archives if possible might be a good place to start? In any case always feel free to reach out if you require any help or need a second opinion with anything. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Italy broadcasts between 2002-2008

Do we know if GAY.tv broadcast Eurovision in Italy in any other years besides 2003? It launched the year before and it shut down in 2008, but I recall at least one page mentioning them showing it a few times before Italy's comeback. Is there any proof to this or was 2003 the only year?--BugsFan17 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@BugsFan17: I do remember seeing references to GAY.tv on a number of Eurovision articles in the past, so they very well could have done so. I don't know when or if they did show the contest however, but could be worth looking into. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Operation: Back to FA

Hello fellow Eurovisionistas! I hope you're all keeping well in these strange times wherever in the world you might be.

I come to you today with a bold proposition, but one I believe to also be rather exciting. The Eurovision Song Contest main page was once a featured article, one of the best that Wikipedia had to offer, however as time has gone on this status has slipped from us. My goal is that we bring the main page back up to those heights again.

With this is mind, I have created a draft page for a new article, to allow us to start with a clean slate and to build the article from the ground up. I think our first aim should be to get the article up to GA status, and then hopefully upwards. I see this as being a bit of a slow burner, helping out whenever we have the chance, but I think it would be amazing if in 11 months time, come the 2021 grand final that this could be the daily featured article (as it had been in 2007).

Any help at all in this endeavour would be greatly welcome, so if you feel like helping out with this then feel free to get stuck in! Currently I have created the skeleton structure (subject to change) and a few things from the current article (with some slight rephrasing), so there's plenty of work to go around if you're interested in any specific aspects of the contest.

In the meantime if you have any questions or wish to volunteer then leave a message below! Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a great idea! I will help out where I can! Grk1011 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Good article push

Since I assume a vast majority of us are now working reduced hours from home, not working at all, taking online classes, etc. Is anyone interested in a group effort to push a lot of our borderline articles to GA-status (or some other goal)? I haven't had this much free time in a decade and am struggling to fill it. Anyone interested? Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested in theory, but I think what we have to consider first is creating a set of guideline or a mini-MOS of sorts. Each year, the same issues are discussed a new and many (if not most) Eurovision article editors are either not familiar with or not interested in Wikipedia's guidelines. We, as a project, should have a central reference to allow for uniformity between articles. Editors I think would be well-equipped to cooperate on this include (in no particular order) @Dummelaksen, Semsûrî, Sammyham84, Fort esc, Ætoms, Alucard 16, Avco123, Wesley Wolf, and אומנות. IceWelder [✉] 15:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The main page for the project theoretically has the mini-MoS outlined in the Objectives section, however I honestly just threw that together 12 years ago without much input and it hasn't been updated with wiki-wide consensus changes throughout the years. Articles like Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest and Romania 2005 would be good guides since they're recent promotions (thanks @Cartoon network freak:!). Also pinging @009988aaabbbccc and LWL12345: for inclusion. Grk1011 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the kind words, I'm probably going to nominate a lot more of Romania at Eurovision pages, since my goal is to have them all promoted (ust like all Romanian songs). "Alcohol You" and Romania at ESC 2020 are already GANs. Hoping for the best, but btw still crying about the cancellation :( All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind helping out getting some articles to GA would be a nice break in-between working on the COVID-19 related stuff. While I totally understand and I back the decision I'm still heartbroken ESC got cancelled I had a lot of favs this year. Next event to watch out for is the Olympics its in July ekkk. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

An update on this challenge: We have 4 new Good Articles! Thank you @Cartoon network freak: and @Iaof2017:! The two of them, as well as myself and @HawkAussie: have a total of 9 more Good Article nominations pending (or currently undergoing) review. These statistics as well as some other project-related alerts can be seen on our Article Alerts tab. I understand that some of these were going to happen regardless of this "Good Article Push", but let's still try to feel like a cooperative group of editors! Thanks everyone! Grk1011 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome, Thank you too @Grk1011: for your contributions. :)--Lorik17 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone. I'm really looking forward to finishing my Romania-in-ESC series, really wanted that for very long haha. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: Since I first posted about this in mid-March, we have gone from 59 Good Articles to 88!!! That's an increase of 29 Good Articles; a 50% increase! There are currently 5 additional articles either pending review or in the process of being reviewed. Thanks to all who have taken part! Grk1011 (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats everyone! This is really an amazing push! As I mentioned in my post below I am currently working on a new draft of the Eurovision main page with the aim of getting this back to GA, and ultimately FA again, so anyone who would like to help or contribute is more than welcome! I've already received some great comments via the draft talk page, so please do keep them coming. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Entries in Eurovision" article consensus?

I recently noticed the "List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest" article and was considering making some modifications, but before this I wanted to reach out to the project and see if there is consensus among project members on the fate of this article. I feel like it would need a lot of work: there are a few sections which I feel are irrelevant and out of scope (such as native/foreign language versions), but it does include some potentially useful information about the total number of songs (i.e. 500th, 1000th, 1500th songs etc.). It's a rather bulky article in my opinion and is mostly duplicating information already available on the "contest in year" articles, and beyond the official contest entries is largely unsourced, particularly the "withdrawn entries", which although in the large part are factually correct are not backed up by sources. I'm happy to work on improving this article, however I also wanted to reach out and check if there was consensus on potentially nominating for deletion, given some of the noted I mentioned previously. Happy to discuss further before making any decision and please do comment if you have any thoughts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I agree, beyond the main list of entries, the article seems like a haphazard collection of trivia. I don't think the native and foreign language sections belong in the article and they'd be better suited to a fandom article, and the native language list is probably WP:OR if there's not a clear definition of what counts as a "native language" of a country. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have the list, though it can't be collapsed for accessibility reasons. List articles typically don't need to have much prose. I agree that the other sections are not needed. Grk1011 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Yes I agree it's a good article to have, so I'll take a stab at modifying it somewhat. That's a good point with collapsible tables impacting usability, so I'll remove that, split the tables by decade and hopefully that will aid readers, and given I also don't think it needs to be sortable in all honesty, especially with the "colspan" headers, splitting shouldn't be an issue there. I think there is some merit to keeping in the withdrawn and the '93 and '96 failed entries, and perhaps the replaced entries as well, but I'll only keep those for which I can find reliable references. Do let me know if you have any further comments. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone have thoughts on the corresponding article of JESC entries? There are a couple of templates on it currently around Wikipedia:Notability and its reliance on primary sources so just wondering if anyone has any strong opinions on keeping it, especially given there are very few links to any songs or artists. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision magic circus show

Good morning Everybody, I'm a New member of this Fantastic Project and I saw that map in Eurovision Magic Circus Show is wrong. could Someone Fix Bulgaria??? - - Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Country navboxes

A few months ago, @Grk1011: started a discussion on whether the new changes to the country in contest navboxes were a good addition, but I wasn't sure how I felt at the time so I didn't contibute. The navboxes now feature bold and italic text to denote information that doesn't serve the purpose of navigation and have "morphed into a haphazard summary of the participation". I agree with this, and I think the bold and italic text (which denote wins and hostings) should be removed. I'm leaning on the side of keeping the struck out years for non-participation because if they were removed, the casual reader might think that there is a mistake and a link is missing. However, I think the links to regular contest pages should be removed (as I did for Template:Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest). dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that it's starting to look very convoluted for what should be an aid for navigation, and I too don't particularly see the relevance of the bold and italic text for the years (especially when there's no consistency with bolding/italicising the artists or songs as well). I do see merit to keeping the scored-out years for the reason above (I'd perhaps make them smaller to appear less prominent, but that's more of a stylistic choice), but I don't know whether this is relevant in the songs/artists section as I don't think it adds much value given its main purpose for navigation and not an overview of their participation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Post note, I would also agree that we should remove any links to the main contest article in cases where countries did not enter that year and are thus scored out, bringing this back to the main aim of these templates to enable easier navigation between related articles of the country rather than adding additional information that would complicate things. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the changes that have been made to the Finland template. Grk1011 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reformatted the navboxes per this discussion. I've also made the struck-out years smaller for Template:Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest, so if anyone else has any thoughts on that proposal they can share them now. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! I also prefer the scored-out years being smaller and unlinked, I feel it draws focus then towards the years the country participated. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I prefer it too, thanks for the suggestion! dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Language of Yugoslavia songs

I am hesitant to open up the Yugoslavia can of worms again, which has been a bugbear for this project in the past, but there has been some conflict lately regarding the stated language for entries sent by Yugoslavia. For context, I had noticed that entries on the Yugoslavia article had been listed as having been performed in Serbo-Croatian rather than any of the standard varieties Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin (entries in Slovene are clearly exempt from this). In what I believed to be the consensus as described in this talk page section I reverted to using the standard variants established in the 1990s for Yugoslav entries from 1961 to 1992 as outlined on Diggiloo Thrush, however this was quickly opposed and reverted by user Surtsicna, who believed it to be anachronistic. The ensuing conversation between the two of us can be found in this talk page section. I personally have no objection to using Serbo-Croatian for the Yugoslav entries, however there are quite a number of conflicts across Eurovision articles, with some referring to Serbo-Croatian and others referring to the variants as based on the nationality of the performer or the represented constituent republic which won that year's Jugovizija. Although there has been an informal consensus to use Diggiloo Thrush as the basis for languages in Eurovision articles, I feel that a more concrete solution is required that can be enforced as necessary when conflicts arise, as I have no desire to be involved in edit wars in the future. Any comments on this from WikiProject members are greatly welcome. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

From: Template talk:Esc

Just making the discussion at Template talk:Esc#Make sure the template checks if a page for the specified year exists know here, which I think is a good idea. -- AxG / ✉ 17:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision all cities map

For a long time, I have noticed that the map used in List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest (displayed above) is not as it should be. I tried fixing the map about two years ago, but I failed as this file is not up to my expertise. I was hoping that someone would fix it, but the issue has gone unresolved for almost 2 years. Can someone with more expertise fix this file? Otherwise, if the file remains the way it is, there really is no point in using it on the page anymore. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 06:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: I found the issue and was able to fix the map. If there are any more issues with the map, please let me know. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 03:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring out how to correct the file! Per my comment in the file history I removed the inset of Australia given that any editions which may be hosted by Australia will only ever be held in another competing country given the terms of their participation, and as this map is to primarily indicate hosting nations and not participating or winning countries it didn't feel right to include Australia, and would perhaps be misleading to the casual reader. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aris Odi: thank you for fixing the map! I don't know how to properly edit it but Stockholm is missing. Could you add it please? dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dummelaksen: Stockholm should be there now. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 00:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: I only added Australia because the darker grey colour indicates countries that have competed but never hosted, however, perhaps the darker grey colour is unnecessary because it is not shown in the map key and in Junior Eurovision Kazakhstan is also not allowed to host but would look strange if it remained in a lighter grey colour. Since this map is as you stated to primarily indicate hosting nations and not participating or winning countries, do you think the map should use only one grey colour? Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 00:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

[1] Contains two lines in Arabic.

[2] Contains two lines in Arabic.

[a]

[b]