Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 3

Eurovision Song Contest 2016
eurovision song contest 2016 host Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.45.41 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but they'd have to win Eurovision 2015 first in order to be host of the 2016 contest.  Wes   Mouse  13:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2017 - Bankrupt. --  axg  // ✉  ]] ''' 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * eurovision song contest 2016 host Greece eurovision song contest 2015 winner Greece in Vienna 130.43.45.41 (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.211.80 (talk)
 * As noted, the contest hasn't taken place yet - don't be counting chickens until the eggs have hatched.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Australia?
Needed updating regarding Australia being invited to join. NewKingsRoad (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't mix up sections.-79.223.27.221 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And please, keep it civil and do not be aggressive in comments to editors.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it civil and don't accuse other editors of fictional wrongdoings. What in "Please don't mix up sections." do you consider to be aggressive?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you normally poke into other's conversations?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to have a private conversation. It would be more useful to address the point I made.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one should practice what they preach then. Like you say, this is not the place for a private conversation - so why have you instigated such in various places? Do you get a kick out of hounding people? Harrassment is not tolerated on Wikpedia, in case you were not aware.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in heaven do you get the idea that I hound you? Where is that private conversation you are talking about?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to the "private conversation" part; you said it yourself here that this is not the place to have a private conversation. As for the hounding, do I really need to provide all the diffs as evidence? You've gone to almost every thread on various talk pages to debates in which only I have participated in, and then aimed somewhat attacking remarks at myself. Clear hounding.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I said that this is not the place, but my question was where I had one with you.
 * I participate in various issues concerning one article, half of the discussions were started by myself. Do you think that you are the spokesperson for this article, and that everything concerns you?
 * So no hounding at all, and frankly I'm starting to get fed up with your personal attacks. Be civil and focus on the article, not on my person.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you tell people to be civil, then you should also be civil to them. Treat people how you wish to be treated in return. I never implied that you had a private conversation with me - where did you get that idea from? You were the one to tell me that this is not the place for private conversations. But one could say in telling someone about privacy is also a private conversation. But that is neither here nor there. I think it is best that you and I took some time-out from each other, as we are clearly getting nowhere. A bit of breathing space and cooling off period may rebalance the situation. So if you don't mind, I would like to call a 3-hour cool-off. Gives me chance to get some painkillers for my almost amputated toe and have a catnap too.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will quote you whenever I see the need.
 * "I never implied that you had a private conversation with me - where did you get that idea from?" - From this: "Do you normally poke into other's conversations?" and this: "Like you say, this is not the place for a private conversation - so why have you instigated such in various places?"
 * Why are we talking about this?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And it is common courtesy and obligatory that if an editor has kindly asked you not to do something - in this case I have kindly asked you to stop quoting my text as if to downgrade my integrity - that you acknowledge their request and be courteous in trying ones best to refrain from doing what it is they asked. If you wish for me to respond in future, then I would appreciate that you cease quoting my own text in an attacking and derogatory manner. I will not respond any further until such re-quoting has stopped.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have taken that cool-off break. Your reaction is over the top. Please reconsider.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy of the historical hatred perpetration aspect.
> Criticism and controversy

The section should also mention that ESC rules heavily discriminate against some participant countries. Since nobody can vote for themselves, each country is at the mercy of the others. Countries with few or no friends have no chance to win or even score well, no matter how catchy a song and what an excellent singer they run. Thus the ESC rules perpetrate a millenia's historical ballast of mutual hatred and are actually detrimental to friendship and unity within Europe.

The situation is direst for Hungary, which has never received more than 1,000 votes from any foreign country except Poland, due to the many enemies Hungary has. (In the 1920 post-WW1 forced peace treaty of Versailles-Trianon, France was instrumental in curbing away 2/3rd of territory and 50% of population from Hungary. Clemanceu redistributed that to neighbouring countries of Serbia-Yugoslavia, Romania, Czech-Slovakia and USSR. In those countries the populace is still taught to hate Hungary in schools, due to the logic of "a thief can't rest while the owner is still alive". Hungary retaliated by a massive forgery campaign against the french paper franc in 1925, thus the french also hate Hungary.) Germany also doesn't vote for Hungary, because Hungary was the last remaining vassal of the Third Reich, its riverine gunboats fought until May 8th 13:00z and the germans are ashamed of that period in their history.

In this situation, the ban on forming mixed-nation bands means some hated countries, like Hungary remain eternal pariahs in ESC and it cannot be helped. Can you imagine a 100 meter sprint race where the winner is determined by national sympathies and grievances, rather than the stopwatch? 82.131.149.123 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning makes no sense as Iceland for example has placed second, twice. Even though they have no neighbours. United Kingdom and Ireland has plenty of wins though they only have each other as neighbours. Of course there are regional voting, but overall it does not effect the results in terms of winners. And to make some comparison between old times and Hungary at ESC today, well if that was true then Germany would get zero points each year. Regards--BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on why Hungary does or does not get votes, but there's a big difference between not having any neighbors who share a land boundary with your country and not having any 'friends' or political allies within the ESC which is what the original comment was talking about. In some cases sharing a land boundary can make two countries less likely to get along because there are likely to have been border disputes at some point in their past (although the same can be true of countries with seas between them, see England and France pretty much right up until WW1 for example), but it's also entirely possible to be allied with a country that's nowhere near yours. 82.68.159.246 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Whilst there appears to be some truth in your claim, in that Hungary is generally disliked by those countries it ruled over during the Empire period, and from whom it tried to reclaim territory during WW2 (Croatia, Serbia, Cezh, Slovakia, Romania) I do not believe this extends to the many other European countries who vote in ESC. Thus I cannot believe the issue is as influential as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.75.156 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dubious claim in the Lede
The lede says: "Winning the Eurovision Song Contest provides an opportunity for the winning artists to capitalise on the surrounding publicity and further their careers"

Some sources are named, but overall the claim is highly dubious:
 * Domenico Modugno made third place. I never heard of the man, and no source is given.
 * Celine Dion is working out of North America, where the ESC is mostly unknown.
 * Julio Iglesias made fourth place, tied with two other artists.
 * Conchita Wurst is (still) the current winner, let's see whether or not she is forgotten after the next ESC.

That leaves Abba, the only success story I'm aware of, and possibly Bucks Fizz (I barely remember them), who where active for a few years after their ESC success. That's at most two cases out of dozens of winners, second and third places, an abysmal record for a song contest of this popularity.

The two sources are horrible to support the case. Here is a quote from one of them: "While most Eurovision winners quickly, and perhaps deservedly, fade back into obscurity, the contest helped launch the careers of ABBA and Celine Dion." Yes, the source contradicts the claim. The other source does not even mention the ESC.

Unless someone can find a reason to keep it, I propose to cut this section down to Abba, and possibly a mention of the fact that publicity is not gained except for a very short time (as the source says).91.10.12.68 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "provides an opportunity" is adequate wording to cover the possibility I think. Leave as is. NewKingsRoad (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The ESC also "provides an opportunity" to pick your nose in front of a large audience. That does not mean that that is typical for the ESC, and it does certainly not mean that it should be in the lede. The claim is at best badly sourced, and quite possibly wrong, in any meaningful sense of the word (ie. misleading).-79.223.27.221 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CITELEAD, lead sections are not suppose to contain citations anyway. Lead sections summarise the content written in the main article body, which would contain the said citations.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatev, the same content does not belong in the lede or anywhere else in the article, since it's not happening.-79.223.27.221 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So, any comment on this or should I proceed to fix it?-91.10.62.211 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One is suppose to allow reasonable time to elapse first. That is how building a consensus works.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source clearly and directly contradicts what the article says it does. I'm not sure that consensus is needed to change that. Nonetheless, I just asked for further comments.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it, no reason to keep something in the article that is directly contradicted by the source.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And please, keep it civil. There was no need for the sarcastic "whatev" remark. One should assume good faith in people. All I was pointing out is that citations shouldn't even be in the lead anyway. I was not commenting on the issue at hand. But if you wish that I did.... then be prepared for the lashing.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 12:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Prepared for the lashing" is non-aggressive and civil?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical speak. No aggression intended. Sheesh, did someone get out of the wrong side of their bed this morning?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC) It is an idiom phrase that I coined myself. And looking at it now, it does look a bit harsh. Allow me to explain. In real life I use the phrase "be prepared for the lashing"; which translates from my own idiom to English as meaning "be ready as I can be an active debater and love the soapbox". It is not meant in a negative way.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And again you respond with a personal remark about others, and again one that could easily be applied to yourself. You should simply stop commenting on people's behaviour.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wes: Please do comment on the issue at hand, as it is right now nobody contradicted the position that the lede should be changed. Do you?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough, I shall comment per your request. Firstly, the IP who asked the question made reference to sources in the lead section. I merely pointed out that per WP:CITELEAD that there shouldn't be any citations in that section anyway, as the lead only summarises content from the entire article. Are the points raised that appear in the lead, also appear in more detail within the main article body? If so, do they go into better detail? If they do, then the lead just needs to be re-written to summarise the article. If not, then the article body that relates to the lead summary needs to be improved.
 * The question at hand is do artists capitalise on the surrounding publicity and further their careers? Well, some could argue that they do, some would argue they don't. But wouldn't that be down to personal judgement and how well-known former winners have become across Europe and the world? ABBA and Celine Dion; have become global superstars since winning Eurovision. Bucks Fizz only became a success across Europe. Then there are participants who have never won, but have still gone on to greater success in their musical careers, such as Cliff Richard and Olivia Newton-John.
 * If the article is to look and decide who would be "the greater successors of Eurovision", could in theory be based on the quality level of their respective BLP article. If it is a feature article, then I'd be inclined to say that artists has gone onto great success.
 * There is a lot to be changed though, not just here, but across the entire WikiProject Eurovision area. And I have many a time in the past pushed for a reform in how the project operates, so that we can improve in our standards, and then we'd ultimately never get into these complexed over-heated debates. But every time I have instigated a reform, I just get told to "shut up, it won't happen". But clearly a reform is in need to happen, so that everyone is clear on how to operate, in accordance of course with Wikipedia core policies. If people like yourself, were to give backing for a reform, then we'd be one step closer to clearing a hell of a lot of long-running debates, such as this and Germany wins debates. But that of course, is up to you if you are willing to back a reform.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, the issue is independent of the location within the article.
 * "Well, some could argue that they do, some would argue they don't. But wouldn't that be down to personal judgement" - No, it would not. The source says the success usually does not come after a victory, the opposite of what the article currently says.
 * "If it is a feature article, then I'd be inclined to say that artists has gone onto great success." - Wikipedia is not a valid source, and in this case, the metric is almost unconnected to the question. One devoted fan with a talent for writing is enough make an article FA, it says nothing about the overall significance.
 * What reform are you talking about? This is about the article, not about the project.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't quote my comments, I am not of dementia that I need to be reminded what I have said. So I kindly ask that you do not quote my text again. And the reform yes is for the project, but seeing as all these articles fall under the project scope, then ultimately the reform would carry a huge impact across all of the articles, how they should be written, stylised, etc. Reforming how the project should look after its articles will resolve a hell of a lot of issues like this.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

russia removed in slogan list
pls correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.54.250 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The map is still wrong
Germany is still shown as having won only once. The Germany in Eurovision article has it correctly but this main page has been showing the wrong information for a year at least. I don't have the skills to alter the map but it really does need fixing. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * this debate gets thrashed out periodically as can be found in the number of threads at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 1 and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 2, and also at File talk:Eurovision winners map.svg - some of which you have also participated in. The map is highlighting the fact that there use to be a divided East-West Germany up until its reunification in the early 1990s. There is a footnote on the map which directs people to the notes section, and provides an explanation into why it is done this way. If we change the colour for both, then people will think Germany have won 4 times, twice as a divided Germany, and twice as a reunified Germany.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 10:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the Federal Republic of Germany still won both times (and still exists today) - and the German Democratic Republic did never enter the ESC at all - the way it is presented is misleading 149.172.99.168 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * not only did the German Democratic Republic never enter the ESC it was never a member of the EBU 16:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.168 (talk)
 * We know Germany won twice. But in 1982 there was a massive wall dividing the nation. The Federal Republic of Germany was on the western side of that wall, and the map has to show that historical factor. If we show the nation of Germany as being a reunified nation in 1982, then we would be portraying a factual lie.  We couldn't highlight both as twice, as that would make people think "West Germany" won twice and the reunified Germany also winning twice.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 19:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're honest this debate gets 'thrashed out periodically' only because, as the threads highlighted show, you and only you argue with everyone else that the map is correct. As for a "factual lie", it's the map which is showing a lie, ie that Germany has only won once (when you yourself just said it won twice). Inclusion of the map is meant to illustrate clearly the facts and the fact is, as we all agree, Germany won twice. I very much admire the work you've put into this article but imagine a journalist having a quick glance at the map and writing an article claiming one win for Germany. We'd all tut tut at their sloppiness, so the map really should be accurate as it's a very instant representation of the facts (the footnote will not be read and is in any case very confusing, talking of 'Germany' and 'Germany as a whole' as if they're two countries). You seem hung up on the map (which is of the territories of Europe as they are now) having to cover the legal territory of Europe as it was four decades ago, which of course it cannot. You also don't seem to understand the legal reality of what 'Germany' is (and has been since the war). As many others in those threads keep pointing out a country called "West Germany" never existed; it was never in the EBU and never entered Eurovision. It's a term used in English-speaking countries and not used in Germany itself (they have always talked about the 'Bundesrepublik'..'federal republic', both then and now). The proper name for the country is the Federal Republic of Germany and it joined Eurovison in 1956 and remains in it to this day, with 'Germany' always on the scoreboard (never 'West Germany'). Its capital changed and its borders changed (in 1957 when Saarland joined it and in 1990 when the eastern regions did the same) but as everyone keeps repeating it's the same country. Or when asked how many times Germany has entered Eurovison do you actually say "35 as West Germnay and 25 as 'Germany'"? The Olympic medals won by the Federal Republic before 1990 aren't separated out from its post reunification tally (and why should they?) so why do that with its Eurovision performances? This defies all common sense. I assume the one win that the map is showing is the win in 2010? Nicole would be very unimpressed to see her win airbrushed off the map. The Germans must find this rather silly as they are in no doubt about what 'Germany' is. After all the German version of this Wikipedia article has a map and guess what? It shows Germany with two wins. So are you going to tell them their map is a 'factual lie' too? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that all the "periodical thrashing about" took place between 2006 and 2010. I only joined Wikipedia on 13 August 2011, well after these debates took place. So it would be appreciated if you retracted the accusation that I have taken part in every single debate that took place. I only commented briefly once to a thread that was started in 2010, but my comment was made 4 years later.
 * In 1982 when Germany won, the nation was divided politically. Even the maps of 1982 shown an East and West Germany. Although the EBU did not refer to the FR Germany as "West Germany", their atlas status of such nation in that era needs to be depicted correctly - which is what we have done. If we show a reunified Germany being in existence in 1982, then we would be portraying a factual inaccuracy and that would be more offensive to Germans who endured the political divide of that era. Now if we're to use a unified Germany for 1982, then we're basically changing history - and we do not have the right to change history in that manner. Something like this will require community-wide consensus at the correct venue (not sure if ArbCOm or something similar is the place to be heading). And only then would we have something strict to be abiding too.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the period of debate only occurred after Germany's second win in 2010; before then the country had indeed only won once so a map showing that would have been correct. Secondly I don't need to retract any 'accusation' because I never made any: I stated a fact, ie that you are the only person who has been defending the map. Since 2010 24 people have posted saying the map is wrong and 2, including yourself, have defended it (neither German and one of which later changed their mind and agreed with the majority). There's certainly no need for any arbitration as the community-wide consensus could not clearer: 24 to 1. Currently this article across its German and English versions has 2 maps and they both obviously cannot be correct. So I presume you wish to change the map on the German version of this article? It is rather naughty to claim to be sensitive to the feelings of Germans on this when it's patently obvious from their article what their feelings are: anyone trying to change their map to show one win would certainly soon discover what "would be more offensive to Germans". The EBU repeatedly say 'Germany' won twice. A map that says it won once is simply wrong and that is "changing history" as you call it. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-country/country?country=9

Finally you ignored my point about the map being of Europe today but you wanting it to reflect the territorial realities of pre-1990. That is the root of all this. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When you have quite finished being so distasteful, disrespectful, and slanderous to my name - perhaps you might like to check what is written here before attacking myself with such disgusting comments.
 * The footnote wording for the map probably needs to be corrected. But the map itself cannot. When Germany won in 1982, despite the fact it was the FR Germany - the exact location of that territory was on the West (pre-reunification) or colloquially known as West Germany. We have shown that in the map's indent. When Germany won in 2010, it was a reunified Germany on the map of Europe - again that is shown. The map itself shows the historical factor that Germany was divided pre-1990, and also shows Germany as unified post-fall of the Berlin wall. Maybe the footnote should read "Germany has won the contest twice, in 1982 and 2010.  However, their win in 1982 was during the time of East/West Germany, whilst the win in 2010 was post-reunification" (and we would be able to link to the article for those who did not know about the Berlin Wall.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Vauxhall posted an official source that directly contradicts you, let it rest.-79.223.19.149 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest in which it states in the lead section Before German reunification in 1990, it occasionally presented as West Germany, representing the Federal Republic of Germany. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) did not compete. Germany has won two contests, in 1982 and 2010. The map itself shows both of Germany's wins. However, it also makes note of the fact that the win in 1982 was Before German reunification in 1990, whilst the win in 2010 was after the German reunification in 1990. If we grey out "West Germany" in the indented map, then we would be saying that their win in 1982 was part of a reunified Germany - and that would be portraying a fallacy. Look at it another way, let's say that in 1987 the Soviet Union had been successful in their participation. Would we then have to say that although the nations of Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Russia, and Azerbaijan won once, they were part of the Soviet Union thus giving the former nations a total of 5 wins? No we wouldn't.  So we cannot show a map portraying that in 1982 a reunified Germany had won, because we would be saying that the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) also participated with their Western counterpart.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your imaginary cases are not relevant - Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan do not claim to be, and are not legally recognized as successors of the Soviet Union.
 * Let me point out another weak spot in your argument. You write above: "Federal Republic of Germany looked like this" - Exactly, and while it did change shape, it is still the Federal Republic of Germany, the country that won two ESCs. You yourself can't even address that entity that purportedly won the first one.-79.223.19.149 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also the Eurovision website picks up on the point that in 1982 it was West Germany. Over 13 million West Germans watched Nicole's victory on television and her winning song became a hit in all over Europe. And again they make reference to the East/West Germany in this when they say "The fall of the European communism and the German re-unification was the main issue of the songs of the 1990 Eurovision Song Contest in Zagreb". So clearly the EBU do note the fact there was an East and a West Germany.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot, but this is surely one of the silliest arguments I've seen on Wikipedia. The argument to assign only one win to Germany on the map implies that the pre-1989 Germany no longer exists. Need I say more?

Let me make a suggestion: With the same rigor, change every map of the USA in every context where a part of the events in question happened before Hawaii joined the Union. If you get away with it, I'll happily agree with your line of thinking.

This looks like a big fat case of POV-pushing OR to me, done by a special interest group. Get rid of it.-79.223.19.149 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * the map is simply not true, the Federal Republic of Germany won twice not once, that is a fact - why is this page so anti-fact? 07:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.181.144 (talk)
 * Keep it civil please. There is nothing "anti-fact". On the contrary it is historically geographically factual. If we colour the entire nation of Germany as winning twice, then we are saying in the 1980s the whole of Germany (Federal and Democratic) won; when in fact only the Federal part won - which in historical geography purpose was only West Germany. In 2010 the landscape of FR Germany was larger, and that is shown in the second map. We have to show political correctness and historical geographical landscapes based on the time period. In this case, the landscape that FR Germany looked in 1982, and the landscape it looked in 2010. You can argue this until the cows come home, but it won't get changed, as it is common logical to show how the nation looked in both eras. Would you expect to to highlight the landmass of the USSR to show that they won 5 times (as Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Russia, and Azerbaijan)? No you wouldn't.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 12:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are all over the place calling people uncivil while threating to give them "a lashing". Maybe you should reconsider that position.
 * Every known source is against your position, including the ESC itself.
 * International law contradicts your position: (The Federal Republic of) Germany is still (the Federal Republic of) Germany. Your quasi-historical construction is followed by nobody, neither in Germany nor elsewhere, neither in politics, law, social life nor culture. Nobody denies that Germany is Germany, except you. From Germany: "The united Germany is considered to be the enlarged continuation of the Federal Republic and not a successor state."
 * Your position is untenable: Even now, you'd have to cover Transnistria and the Crimea, it's likely that others will follow. Are you prepared to keep the map up-to-date with events in Eastern Ukraine? Are you prepared to follow politics in Israel and Cyprus and reflect events on the map? Selfkant belonged to the Netherlands when they won 1957, will your map reflect that? Ignoring that, your map is inaccurate: West-Berlin is missing from the map and all lists in Wikipedia as the political entity is was until 1989. Are you prepared to fix that?
 * You failed to address almost every point put before you, and simply restate your position. Consensus here on Wikipedia is plainly against you. That should at least give you pause. You are pushing a very unique POV, and you should not revert the article to that position until you untied at least some of the knots.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, ESC themselves go against your view. Over 13 million West Germans watched Nicole's victory on television and her winning song became a hit in all over Europe (from the EBU). And again they make reference to the East/West Germany in this (from the EBU).  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 14:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So your version of "civility" is calling my statements "shear evil aggression"?
 * Your source says, a few lines above the one you quoted: "Germany finally had its first win in the history of the song contest with its 27th try." - No mention of West Germany. And again a few lines below the one you quoted: "Finland’s entrant, Kojo, also sang about peace. His song - a protest against nuclear bombs - did not do as well as Germany's, however It received no points at all." Again, no mention at all of West-Germany.
 * Vauxhall's source is not merely an article, it's the result table, and it says: "Germany - Victories - Lena in 2010 - Nicole in 1982"
 * The rest of your argument seems to be that I am an IP and thus wrong by default. Your prejudice is noted, but it does not really hold water.
 * Again, you did not address the bulk of the arguments. As it stands right now, your position contradicts sources, law, custom and consensus. That is the position we are in right now.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that you speak of? I see none at ArbCom? I can see why people state Germany won twice. But what people are arguing over is the map, and want to highlight the landmass of Germany in present day as having 2 wins. Doing so is incorrect. The land borders of FR Germany in 1982 and 2010 are completely different. And that is why both are highlighted on the winners map. There is the Germany as it looked during their 1982 win, and Germany as it looked in their 2010 win. On the table it still shows 2 wins, but on the map it shows 1 + 1 win, which if I am not mistaken equals 2. There is also the footnote which provides an explanation about it all. This debate has gone on for years, and has clearly not gone anywhere either. Perhaps we need to get some sort of WP:ARBCOM resolution once and for all.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

To look at it another way... based on what is being said about Germany, would also apply to Serbia. Yugoslavia won once, but so have Serbia. Would that mean we would highlight Serbia on the map as having two wins, because Serbia was once part of Yugoslavia? Would we in theory have to say Croatia won once, because the contest was held in Zagreb in 1990? The map itself depicts the fact that historically, Yugoslavia won once, and in present day, Serbia won once. Back in 1982, FR Germany was half the size in landmass, compared to present day FR Germany. And that factor is depicted on the map, showing the FR Germany win in 1982, based on how the country looked then on an atlas, and the win in 2010 based on how the country looks now on an atlas.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up, the remaining part; the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (and then Serbia and Montenegro) did apply to be the "successor state", however, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 said that the SFR Yugoslavia "ceased to exist", and thus the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had to apply for all its memberships again. --  [[  axg  // ✉  ]] 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, . What do we do about Germany though? For the moment, people want Germany as it looks today to be highlighted as two wins, because Germany in 1982 was also known as FR Germany (like it is known today). However, in doing do, we'd ultimately be saying that in 1982, the German Democratic Republic also took part, and thus won alongside their Western counterpart; when it is a known fact that that is impossible. The Democratic side (aka East Germany) didn't take part in 1982. And that is why the map from how I see it, shows the wins based on how Germany looked in 1982, and how it looked in 2010. Unless, if we hatch-colour the west side to show 1 and 2 wins (1982 and 2010), and the east side as only having one win (2010).  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) First of all, why do you think that consensus can only come from ArbCom? In the discussion here and in File talk:Eurovision winners map.svg, the only person defending your position is yourself. That is almost by itself "consensus". It should at the very least give you pause, and prevent you from pushing through your POV without regard.
 * In addition, you continue to miss a whole lot of arguments: What about law? What about custom? What about the fact that your position (and the map you defend) is inconsistent, since it ignores a whole lot of political changes? What about Algeria, Transnistria, the Crimea, Israel, Selfkant, Cyprus? Can you please respond to these arguments, instead of repeating your position again and again?
 * "based on what is being said about Germany, would also apply to Serbia." - No, it would not. Yugoslavia does not exist no longer anymore at all. Germany does.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not like me any more Wes, but I don't have any objections with Germany having 2 wins, since yes the Federal Republic of Germany was West Germany and is the current Germany, we have all the information in the one article and ARD is the same broadcaster, and based on the reason I gave above about Yugoslavia, FR Germany retained its memberships. --  [[  axg  // ✉  ]] 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yugoslavia does not exist any more, I agree. But when they won in 1989 it did exist, and that is shown in the map, because Yugoslavia won in a time of history when the country existed. Germany exists now yes, as a reunified nation. But in 1982, it was divided into West and East. What people seem to want is to highlight Germany in its current reunified status as having two wins, but in 1982 Germany was not reunified. A bit like you say that Yugoslavia doesn't exist any more. In 1982, a reunified Germany didn't exist either. A reunified Germany only existed from 1990 onwards. And that is what's shown on the map. But in the table itself, it still shows Germany as 2 wins, the map shows 2 wins too, but divided geographically based on the fact a unified Germany never existed when they won in 1982, but did when they won in 2010. I will always like you. Who else would I turn to when I get into technical difficulties with inkscape, lol. But yes, Germany won twice, I agree. But like I point out above, Germany in 2010 was reunified, Germany in 1982 was not. In both eras they are known as FR Germany. But to highlight on a reunified Germany that they won twice, would be saying that in 1982 East Germany was part of FR Germany and also won - and they didn't. East Germany took part in the Intervision Song Contest during the time that Germany was split into "West" and "East".  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you repeat your position again, and you again ignore a number of arguments against your position. Let me repeat: What about law? What about custom? What about the fact that your position (and the map you defend) is inconsistent, since it ignores a whole lot of political changes? What about Algeria, Transnistria, the Crimea, Israel, Selfkant, Cyprus? What about the consensus here and elsewhere? Can you please respond to these arguments?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is only one way around this that I can think of to date. The winners map has an insert showing Yugoslavia and the then commonly known "East and West Germany's". Would colouring Germany as it stands now as 2 wins, and the Germany in the insert with its 1982 win in the era that Germany was divided. Would this work, or would it cause more confusion? Well, if I am repeating, then it is clear there is an issue in regards to how the map of Germany looked in 1982 and present day - a huge flipping difference. Have we forgotten about the Berlin wall already, which divided Germany into Federal and Democratic? That was law too. Germany was seen as being a divided nation in 1982. Are we just going ignore that factual law? I doubt the citizens who lived in the German Democratic Republic, would want to be classified as being part of the Federal Republic of Germany, when FR Germany won in 1982. We need to respect them too. And you never answered my question either IP91, when I asked if you would consider pushing for a reform in how Project Eurovision operates - as we'd ultimately be able to lay to rest a lot of issues like this current too in its process.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yugoslavia won, but is no longer on the map - that is special situation. Germany is not.
 * "Are we just going ignore that factual law?" - I don't: The actual law contradicts your position and says that Germany (2015) is the same entity as Germany (1949). It shape changed, the entity did not.
 * "I doubt the citizens who lived in the German Democratic Republic, would want to be classified as being part of the Federal Republic of Germany, when FR Germany won in 1982." - Nobody makes that point. I'm pretty sure however that at least some of them felt like Germans when Nicole won.
 * "And you never answered my question either IP91, when I asked if you would consider pushing for a reform in how Project Eurovision operates" - I'm not interested in that topic, I'm interested in the article.
 * Still unanswered: What about the position the law has to the nature of Germany? What about custom? What about the fact that your position (and the map you defend) is inconsistent, since it ignores a whole lot of political changes? What about Berlin, Algeria, Transnistria, the Crimea, Israel, Selfkant, Cyprus? What about the consensus here and elsewhere? Can you please respond to these arguments?-91.10.30.120 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that an editor over at WikiCommons has also agreed with the same view and understands what has happened here. They note that "that small map at the top right with the country borders before the German re-unification and the splitting of Yugoslavia indicates their first wins", and the main map that shows country borders after the German re-unification indicates their second win. At least someone else understand the map.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. I listed the numerous problems with your position below. Feel free to engange them whenever you are ready.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just paid a visit to Commons. You failed to tell us that one editor understands your map (but not necessarily supports it over the alternative), while three speak against your position. AGF has limits, and I would consider this slanted reporting to be dishonest. You also fail to tell us that the one editor understanding your position did not so initially. See below, where I state that your map is not explaining the facts in a clear way.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is really, and you are now being ignoramus towards another editor at commons who doesn't even know about this discussion right here and now. Would you like me to notify them that you have basically discredited their view and completely ignoring them? I'm sure they would wipe you down the walls in disgust. Anyway, as I have told you before, I will point-blank refuse to engage in your request, until you have complied with etiquette rules and redacted comments that are profoundly derogatory and tarnishing my personality in a libellous manner. And cease immediately with the bullying attacks, if you continue I will escalate matters to admin intervention.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I already invited them to join.
 * I listed the numerous problems with your position below. Feel free to engange them whenever you are ready.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you not hear me? Feel free to redact your comments that I have asked to be redacted, then I shall engage. Your repeated attempts to tell me to "feel free to engage with your points whenever I am ready" is a clear way of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, something which you should not be doing, unless of course you actually want to be silenced with a block? You are also gaming the system, which again is not permitted. Your repetitive use of telling me to AGF is in fact bad faith on your part. One needs to remember that we are also to assume the assumption of good faith - like the AAGF guideline states, if an editor constantly reminds others to assume good faith, is in fact a bad faith tactic which falls foul of civility, and constitutes harassment to editors. So, when you are ready to remove the overly-personalised remarks that are tarnishing me as a person, then I will be ready to engage in responding to your view point questions. I have the rest of my life to wait for you to carry out that request. However, you want me to respond, and thus wasting time in your want for that request to be fulfilled.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

91's Position
It's getting a bit too fuzzy, so I will try to summarize my current position. So far, so good. Now please respond, and be civil.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Federal Republic of Germany exists without interruptions since 1949. It was enlarged in 1990, but legally, as well as culturally and economically (whether you like it or not), the new Länder are merely an extension.
 * Culturally, people living in the GDR regarded themselves as Germans, and they still do. If one of them would disregard Nicole's win because "she only won for Germany, not for the GDR", people would probably look at him funny and back slowly away from him. Culturally and within the legal fiction common in West Germany, Nicole won for the entirety of Germany.
 * The situation is not comparable to the one in Yugoslavia: Germany existed continuously over the entire lifetime of the ESC. To explain the situation with regards to Yugoslavia, I would attempt to use different pattern of the same color along with an explanation to make the map readable.
 * It's hard to find a source that even mentions the "West" in West Germany, most simply assume that Germany has two wins. Most importantly, the result page on the ESC's website lists both wins without qualifier. According to the ESC, Germany has two wins.
 * The map is currently inconsistent, as it ignores a number of other political changes that happened over the years. Wesley has so far made no attempt to explain why Germany's situation is different enough to warrant a map inset. It is also already obvious that the situation will get more complicated in the future.
 * The map is also not doing its job of explaining a simple set of facts in a clear way.
 * The position that Germany won kind of 1.5 ESCs is unique and bizarre. I live in Germany, and I would have a hard time even explaining Wesley's position; it can literally not expressed in words, as Wesley himself has demonstrated again and again. It is held by a single editor, the overwhelming consensus here and on the map's talk page is to change the map to plainly assign two wins to Germany.


 * Be civil.. hmm. Bit hard to do when one has just attacked yet again, and not just aimed at myself, but aimed at the general public too. And that is not my view, but fact per WP:WIAPA. We cannot assume that "people would probably look at [him] funny and back slowly away from [him]" in context to the people of GDR. That is a personal opinion of your own, and we cannot speak for people of GDR without solid proof to back up such claim. Wording things like that in an attempt to use one's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting overall views. We certainly shouldn't be POV railroading either, and that is clearly happening here. Because I, an editor with an opposing viewpoint, is being discredited and eliminated from a discussion. And why single me out in a comment by saying "Wesley has so far made no attempt to explain why Germany's situation is different enough to warrant a map inset"? Etiquette comes into strong play with all of that mudslinging. IP91 is forgetting keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of them. So one should not single out a user, as that is a form of attack.
 * IP91 has repeatedly asked me to respond to their questions, and at present I refuse to do so until they retract or at least apologies for some of the distasteful remarks and the want to requote my own words, as per WP:AVOIDABUSE, quoting someone's comments is unacceptable, and I have kindly asked twice that they refrain from quoting me, as it comes across as though they are implying I have dementia and failure to remember what I have written. But the IP has point-blank refused to acknowledge my request to cease with the re-quoting. If the IP wishes for me to return to their "civil debate", then a courteous acknowledgement and respect to Wikipedia etiquette needs to be adhered to from all parties, including myself.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 18:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use my user page and/or Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes for any complaint about my behaviour. Here, they are just a distraction.
 * I'm looking forward to your response to my position.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * all I am asking is that you kindly remove my name from the bullet-point comments of yours above, as it is singling me out and I do not appreciate that kind of behaviour. If there are remarks that I have made that you were to ask me to remove, then I would gladly oblige to such upon request of course.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was my remark inaccurate? In that case I would gladly remove it.
 * You are not forced to discuss the actual problems with the article, but if you don't, again, please use other venues.
 * Until then, I'm looking forward to your response about the actual question at hand.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the fifth and final time I kindly ask that you retract the remarks that you have personally aimed at me, when we should be aiming at the issue. We discuss issues, not personalities. Such comments as "The map is currently inconsistent, as it ignores a number of other political changes that happened over the years. Wesley has so far made no attempt to explain why Germany's situation is different enough to warrant a map inset. It is also already obvious that the situation will get more complicated in the future." and "I live in Germany, and I would have a hard time even explaining Wesley's position ; it can literally not expressed in words, as Wesley himself has demonstrated again and again. " are aimed directly at my personality and not at the matter at hand. Per WP:RPA, I have asked you several times now, and you are refusing to comply with such request, thus leaving me no other choice but to implement procedure and add RPA to the remarks that I feel to be defamatory to my personality.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, let's aim at the issue: I'm looking forward to your response about the actual issue, the map. For everything else, please find another location, eg. my user page.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove/redact the remarks first that I have pointed out and have kindly asked you to remove.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your choice. My position stands.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And so does mine. At least I can be courteous and Redacted my comments. Pity that you cannot do the same, even when I've kindly asked you to do so several times now.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Want to talk about position again? Great!
 * I rebutted yours, see above. I'm looking forward to your response!-91.10.30.120 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK you are refusing to redact comments, leaving me with no other choice.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take a step back and look at what you are doing here. Stop wasting our time.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Telling someone to Have the cake or eat it is a threat and a personal attack. Cease now! And I will not agree to this being collapsed, until you have at least complied to my request to have my name redacted from your comments. And you are the one wasting time. You want to hear my opinion on the issue. I have said I will give it, but only after you have redacted the comments that I kindly asked you to remove. So it is you who is wasting time by not doing the simplest of tasks and just remove what it is someone has asked you to remove.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a few questions that I would like to raise about this, all of which are positive and depending on the answer, could persuade me into rethinking the whole map thing to agree the views of others. But I will not put my question forward until the personally aimed remarks, that I have asked to be removed, have actually been carried out.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope I misunderstand you. You will only bring up your plan to improve the article once I stop being naughty? Please tell me you mean that in a different way.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do understand things, great! Indeed, I will not make public the question I wish to ask, until you have redacted the comments that I have kindly asked you to remove. Simple request, just needs you to carry it out, or allow me permission to redact them on your behalf. Then we can proceed to the resolution stage and the question I wish to put forward. I have already demonstrated that I can redact unsightly remarks that I may have made, and collapsed huge sections in accordance with WP:TPG, which go against WP:NOT. Are you able to reciprocate the civil gesture and redact remarks too?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to engage my arguments as soon as you are ready.-91.10.30.120 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wesley's position
Seeing as my request to have redacted personalised remarks that tarnish me have been rejected, then I have followed WP:TPO process and applied the correct procedure and placed RPA against the libellous comments. Something that the policy states I am within my right to do.

Now that aside, I would like to just have something clarified by other editors other than the IP who has clearly demonstrated their intent to be libellous. Am I right in assuming that The reunification process for Germany meant that the then known "East Germany" (Democratic German Republic) was absorbed into the then known "West Germany" (Federal Republic of Germany), and thus in theory the Federal Republic of Germany "expanded its borders" to become the now known "Reunified Germany"?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that what others and myself have explained several times now, and that's what Germany says, quoted in this very discussion.-~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.26.113 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello! I said anyone else may answer my question and not you. Thanks for showing more signs of your ignoramus mindset. Bloody hell, does one never take notice and comply with requests these days?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * as an uninvolved admin, please could you provide immediate admin intervention here. This is now getting seriously out of hand, with the failure to comply with a simple request from an editor to redact comments that over-personalise myself and tarnish my personality to people who may be passing and reading this talk page.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * CT Cooper, since you had former dealings with Wesley, I politely but explicitly ask you to abstain from intervening. An ANI is already on the way anyway.-79.223.26.113 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request
I will be deleting the third opinion request as incorrect for that noticeboard. It is for issues where there are only two editors involved. I see two registered editors and what appear to be at least two IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Reunified Germany is the legal follower of West and East Germany. Also the membership at the EBU is relevant and that is in both cases (1982 and 2010) the same "company" or broadcast station. All statistics that I know count 2 wins for Germany so why is this different here? I propose to remove Western Germany and set the count of the current German borders to 2 instead 1. SchirmerPower (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't read all this discussion, because I discuss it on Commons. I don't know what you think, but I create hatched version of this map. What you think abouth that? Plz ping me because I can inactive at this Wikipedia (I came from Russian WP). ← Alex Great talkrus? 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Representation of Germany's Wins in the Map
There is an ongoing debate about the way Germany is represented on the map, above. Please let us know what you think about the matter.

Thanks!-79.223.26.113 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Insert your !votes in the Survey section, and your threaded discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk)
 * I don't think that a poll is appropriate, it should really be about the arguments.
 * Thankfully, we have the correct map now, Wes fixed it himself.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did it after a private conversation with a fellow Wikipedian this morning. Yes there was a block imposed here, but that does not effect editing at commons. And was there a need to stalk me to another user's talk page? Seriously, that is out of order!  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Too bad that you couldn't badmouth me without interference.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sarcasm. Bravo! I don't need to badmouth you or anyone, as I keep my opinions about people to myself, whether they nice or nasty. If I want to air out dirty laundry, then I'm sure the likes of The Jeremy Kyle Show would be a good venue for such.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like you did here? "Piss off you little twerp"
 * Please let it rest.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on digging yourself a grave. Going through someone's contributions in order to dig up dirt, is bad faith wikihounding.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let it rest.-91.10.62.211 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey
It is self evident that the map should be the same as the map on the German version of this page, ie, showing two wins for Germany and showing 'Germany' within the borders of the Federal Republic as they are now. The map should also represent what the EBU themselves say about their contest, ie, 'Germany' (not 'West Germany' or 'Reunified Germany') has won twice. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's fairly clear that Germany should be shown as winning twice, as it's the same country (East Germany was absorbed into the existing Federal Republic of Germany), and to make it match the text, which lists Germany as having won twice. The argument above that "people will think Germany have won 4 times, twice as a divided Germany, and twice as a reunified Germany" is nonsense; if Scotland had seceded from the UK, would the map be amended to show the remaining UK as having never won? Number   5  7  16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Show 2 victories, or 1.5 victories, or something else. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support it should be counted as 2 wins for a one colored nation, per legal successor status point, in accordance to the article being written within today's reality. With that, I support that the reality of the country when it first won has to be addressed; there were 2 different entities, with east Germany also competing on other musical events (furthermore imagine a situation of east Germany participating alongside west Germany at the old Eurovision contests). Therefore, I support plainly showing today's Germany with 2 wins, and since the image allows worded description beneath - I support explaining the first win there as achieved by the then west Germany; so the map itself gives preference to today's reality, with depicting a worded-consideration to that reality. אומנות (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * check the top of this talk page, the matter has now been resolved and this RfC has since been closed. The map has now been changed to show the reunified Germany as having 2 wins, whilst keeping Yugoslavia and its only win as a legitimate country at that time in the inserted map.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarity needed in ties section
In #Ties for first place, the last resort rule is given as the song performed earliest in the running order is declared the winner, unless the host country performed first in the running order. The 2009 rules document given as the source of that makes no mention of the host country being involved in ties, and since the 2015 contest scoreboard lists the host Austria above Germany when they tied for last, with Austria having performed earlier, I'm going to suggest that the latter clause be removed or an additional source be found. —烏Γ (kaw), 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * that was in the 2009 set of rules. They changed again in 2015. Also see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/Archive 6, in which it was sourced that the scoreboard of the official Eurovision website placed Austria in 26th, and Germany in 27th, despite them both finishing with no points. The tie-break rule changes a lot over the years, and perhaps those changes need to be documents separately, so that people can understand when each version was implemented, and the changes within the tie-break over the years. The 2015 set of rules in regards to the tie-break explicitly state Rule 1.4 para 5: "In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the semifinal in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties." As the rule states "the same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties", then it would imply any tie-break, whether it be for 1st, 10th, or last.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  22:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did check the 2015 rules as well and found pretty much the same thing, so it doesn't really look like the rule changed from 2009. My point is that neither of these rules documents mention anything about the host country being involved in the tie, so I'm questioning whether the clause unless the host country performed first in the running order is accurate (and if so, to have it sourced). —烏Γ (kaw), 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you clearly didn't check the 2015 rules in full then, otherwise you would have got the gist of it all. Per the linked discussion, the wording of the 2015 rules alongside the evidence of the scoreboard published by the EBU, was interpreted as follows:
 * If there is a tie between two or more songs when the combined calculation between televotes and National Jury votes is used to determine the final ranking of the songs in the Semi-Finals or in the Final, the song(s) which obtained the most votes from the televotes shall be ranked highest.
 * Should two or more songs receive exactly the same number of televotes in a given country, the results of the National Jury shall be used to determine their respective ranks (i.e. the song having obtained the best rank from the National Jury shall be ranked highest).
 * Should two or more songs receive exactly the same rank from a National Jury, the order shall be ascertained by a show of hands by the members of the National Jury. If there is still a tie, the final order shall be decided by the vote of the youngest member of the National Jury.
 * Should there be a tie for the last position in a SemiFinal (because two songs have received the same number of points) or for the first place in the Final, as well as any other situation where a tie occurs, the winner shall be the song which has obtained points from the highest number of countries. If the tying songs have received points from the same number of countries, the highest number of 12-point scores shall be decisive. If the winner still cannot be determined by this procedure, the number of times ten points have been awarded shall be the deciding factor. If necessary, this method shall continue until account has been taken of the number of times one point has been awarded.
 * In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the SemiFinal in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties.
 * To simplify it; based on the evidence of the official scoreboard, which ironically provided clarification on how the EBU implement the tie-break conditions...
 * If there is a tie, the resolve the situation based on who received the most by televoting.
 * If the tie-break is unresolved, they then base it on who received the most jury votes.
 * If the tie-break is still unresolved, they then resolve it by a show of hands by the jury members.
 * If the tie-break can still not be resolved, it falls to the youngest member of the jury to decide who is ranked higher.
 * Should there be a tie for last-place in a semi-final, or first place in a final, or any other tie-break position, the winner is determined by who received the most 12s, 10s, 8, and so on.
 * If the tie-break can still not be resolved once all of those conditions have been used, then the country which was earlier in the running order is ranked higher. This final step is also used to resolve any other ties.
 * As neither Austria or Germany received any points, and the fact the official scoreboard verifies Austria as 26th and Germany as 27th, then it is clear the EBU resulted in using the latter condition on placing the country which was earlier in the running order as finishing in a higher place than the other - purely for the fact Austria performed 14th and Germany 17th in the running order.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It has only just dawned on me as to what you mean. Apologies, it is past 6am, and I've still had no sleep yet. (I promise to get to sleep after posting this) From what was gathered, the "host country exemption" was never the case, and I have no idea how anyone interpreted the rules as implying such case. The rules (albeit more clear in the 2015 wording) just says that a country who performed earlier in the running would be ranked higher, once all other tie-break resolution conditions had been implemented, and there was still a deadlock. Personally though, the section itself needs a complete re-write as it is making it our that the tie-break is only for first place, when the rules alone clearly argue that a tie-break condition can be used no matter what tied position is needing to be resolved.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  05:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As one who frequently stays up as late as possible himself, that's perfectly fine. I don't blame you for wanting to clarify the rules, even if that might have been better targeted at the page rather than at me. I only noticed that that was mentioned in the section about ties, while being blatantly ignored on the scoreboard, and thought it strange enough to ask. But, in general, you do seem to know what you're doing. ...and I feel awkward being an American surrounded by people who have no idea what Eurovision is, let alone being fans. —烏Γ (kaw), 06:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have is there are three articles covering the rules and voting, and not one of them have the tie-break situation covered correctly, in enough detail, or even corresponding with each other. We've got #Ties for first place, Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest, and Rules of the Eurovision Song Contest. The tie-break situation on the first two articles do not match up correctly with each other, nor are they up-to-date with the current rules as of 2015. The latter article that is about the rules, doesn't even cover all of the rules, and again it is out of date. Perhaps we need to work on the rules article, bring it up to date based on the 2015 set of rules; but also write content about all of the rules since the inauguration of the contest in 1956. Do the same procedure for the voting article, bring that up to date. Then on this very parent article, just write a brief summary of those two articles, and add a hatnote for people to click and be directed to the respective 'rules' and 'voting' articles, if they so wish to learn more detailed content about them. I see you also joined WikiProject Eurovision, welcome aboard my new friend.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  06:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like probably the best plan. I will continue to pretend I have no idea what I'm doing, while actually having no idea what I'm doing. I'm much more of a lurker, talker, and gnome than one who actually makes big changes, but that's usually still helpful, hopefully. —烏Γ (kaw), 20:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080609225517/http://www.esctoday.com:80/news/read/12068?rss to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12068?rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518160711/http://www.eurovision.tv:80/page/news/belgrade-2008?id=587 to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news/belgrade-2008?id=587
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141028034055/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/lloyd-webber-agrees-to-try-to-write-a-winner-for-eurovision-966380.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/lloyd-webber-agrees-to-try-to-write-a-winner-for-eurovision-966380.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071122210407/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=05&dd=13&nav_category=113&nav_id=41193 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=05&dd=13&nav_category=113&nav_id=41193

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources checked.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"Since the introduction of semi-finals, four countries, other than the big five, have always reached the final: Azerbaijan, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. However, Romania and Ukraine have missed at least one contest since the inception of the semi-finals." Doesn't the second sentence contradict the first? Shouldn't it be changed? --Khajidha (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe it should specify that these countries have always reached the final in every contest they have participated in. The second sentence is a bit confusing/distracting. --ESC Eagle (talk) 20:37, 06 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605061122/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=290 to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=290

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What about a new category Category:European competitions?
I'm pretty sure there are more European competitions besides the Eurovision Song Contest. What would you think of a new Category:European competitions for such? Alternatively it could also be Category:EU competitions.

Could somebody go ahead and create/populate it?

As of right now there's only Category:Events in Europe which is for any event that takes place in Europe and not European-wide competitions.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/eurovision/2003/history
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ria.gov.ie/filestore/publications/English-CORK-_Millstreet-FINALISED.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141126111421/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=1883&voter=MD to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=1883&voter=MD
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111173206/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=1893&voter=GE to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=1893&voter=GE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611090959/http://escxtra.com/2013/06/archive-to-be-opened-in-time-for-60th-anniversary/ to http://escxtra.com/2013/06/archive-to-be-opened-in-time-for-60th-anniversary/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090518200559/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=157 to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=157

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iLzAiOSQ?url=http://www.ria.gov.ie/filestore/publications/English-CORK-_Millstreet-FINALISED.pdf to http://www.ria.gov.ie/filestore/publications/English-CORK-_Millstreet-FINALISED.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060204201731/http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/208/655 to http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/208/655
 * Added tag to http://www.eurovisionaustria.com/blog/eurovisions-diamond-day/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No slogan
Hi there. I couldn't help but notice this edit, which got me thinking. While I think including a year and explicitly saying it doesn't have a slogan is clunky, I also get the feeling that omitting any mention of having no slogan looks like a year was accidentally left out. I would personally recommend that we use a similar feature to that in the "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles' contestant lists. At the moment, that would look like as follows:

I don't think it is a great solution, but I find it works better than what we have now. Opinions? — Tuxipεdia ( talk ) 09:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I like this slightly better:


 * But over all I think that it would be an improvement to have something there. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 09:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, either option is fine with me. I'm sure something like this has been tried before? My suggestion would be a merger of the two:

I would go with that personally. Fort esc (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Greenland in winners map
Shouldn't Greenland be coloured in with the rest of Denmark on these maps? Bearsca (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there an agreed convention on when to include a language in the 'Languages column'?
I'm asking this, since I cannot seem to find a Wikipedia convention on this topic. There is low-level edit warring on the pages every year because people interpret the need for inclusion differently. My personal opinion would be to include the language if there is a line spoken in that language more than once - meaning Iceland 2010 and Bulgaria 2016 would include French and Bulgarian, respectively - but not just a word, so not Cyprus 2018. Thoughts? -ThatJosh (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing
The notes for winning artists said to discuss on the talk page before adding anyone. Marija Šerifović built her career after Eurovision, and all of her songs and albums released afterwards were hits, so I think she should be added to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by MutatedMan (talk • contribs) 11:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Longest running
How can be Eurovision the longest running song contest AND be based on "Festival di San Remo" that's still running also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.85.17 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Algeria
Algeria in the map should be considered "Competed as a part of another country, but never as a sovereign country", as it was part of France until 1962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.131.89 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and updated the map. --  AxG /  ✉  11:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

UK Spokespersons
There are errors in the names of the spokespersons for the UK jury for 1963, 1964 and possibly 1965. Whoever were the spokespersons, and I can't name them, it was certainly not Nicholas Parsons or Denis Tuohy and I'm pretty certain it wasn't Alistair Burnet. Parsons and Tuohy have exceptionally easily identifiable voices and the people who did announce the scores are most certainly neither of them. Burnet is an equally unlikely candidate as he was not working in broadcasting at all at the time of the 1965 contest and never worked for the BBC during the 1960's even when he was involved in TV and although it's harder to be certain, the voice does not sound like his. Apart from anything, Burnet had a broad Scottish accent. Since there are no references or sources provided for any of these names, it would not be inappropriate to remove them, pending someone finding an accurate source that they were in fact involved with the respective contests. 50.247.98.197 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What about song contest for youth people from the middle of 90's?
In a part of spin offs I didn't see any sentence about song contest for youth people held in the middle of 90's broadcasted on the radio. There where just one event (contest). Do you know anything about it? Will you put there a link or if you know about it?

213.149.61.204 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Ladino


 * Never heard of it, to be honest doktorb wordsdeeds 11:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

France Gall and Luxembourg
France Gall is a french singer. How is it possible that she represented the Luxembourg in 1965 ?

--AXRL (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Celine Dion is Canadian, Katrina Leskanich is American, etc. There are no rules to state the singer has to be from the country the are representing. --  AxG /  ✉  12:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Purely instrumental pieces" not allowed? Then what about the short instrumental which opens the broadcast?
The reason why I ask the question in the subject line is that the broadcast for the two semi-finals and the grand final always opens with an instrumental (i.e. non-vocal) piece.--Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this sentence is saying that purely instrumental pieces are not allowed as entries in the contest representing a country. They can still be part of the program/show though. Grk1011 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Correction of footnote re how Germany was presented at past contests
I've corrected this to reflect the fact that at only one contest - in 76 - was Germany presented as 'West Germany'. At all others it was presented (eg, on the scoreboard, in the titles, in the official programme, etc) as 'Germany'. The exception was 67 in Vienna when it was presented in German as the 'Federal Republic of Germany', which is the official title for what was colloquially referred to as 'West Germany' in Western countries (but never in Germany itself). Check out the scoreboards at http://www.avwoman.co.uk/aview/eurovision/scoreboard/index.html Vauxhall1964 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Politicization
How is Eurovision used as an outlet for political expression and how has it shaped modern politics in Europe? These would be some good questions to address.
 * Are there sources reporting on this? It certainly may be relevant for wikipedia, but it's not something we can state without relevant and reliable sources. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Sub"-articles
Do you see any need to reduce the amount of sub-articles? We have history, winners, rules, etc. History of the Eurovision Song Contest basically duplicates List of Eurovision Song Contest winners for example. I don't have a proposal at the moment, but the amount of overlap I see is pretty intense. Grk1011 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think that's a valid point, we do have a lot of articles related to contest as a whole. Although having a history article does make sense, at the minute there just isn't the content in it to justify it. I've written a bunch of stuff into the draft today, which perhaps we can move over and keep a more high-level overview for the main page? Either that or I think the history article could easily be merged with the winners article and the host cities article. Maybe this is something to post on the WikiProject talk page and see if there's a wider consensus? Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Participation and History
Hey, first, thank you back, for your earlier note! I now want to tell you, I noticed the current draft "Participation" which gave me quite few ideas. From yesterday I worked (on my computer) to minimize from both table+footnotes (as for West Germany, Yugoslavia...); while giving the add of a frame story which I think is always most interesting and swiping if can be done. Here, there is only one detail-factor (countries joining; and not variable complex details), so I came up with something to feat a paragraph flow.

I thought to wait some more days as I said I would, and, anyway, kept working-thinking. However I'm so-so finished with overall key-factors phrasing-strengths the way I think about this. Furthermore, only today I compared both draft + actual-article to realize you shortened those footnotes and noticed other paragraphed chapters somewhat touching countries who joined over the years. The first shows we both think alike about long in-body footnotes. :-) The second strengthens I think what I worked on, as well as something bigger I already thought yesterday - to eventually amalgamate "Participation" onto "Origins and History"... In turn (although not the main reason), this can also further shape the lead paragraphs in correspondence to the chapters order and fewer ones, once those are finalized.

So that I can keep up and express stuff closer to the right momentum, I realized it will be much easier, for anyone, if I edit the draft which will then show by itself "difference between revisions" (instead of showing ideas alongside erased text here); enable me several edits for different suggestions visuals; revert myself to keep the draft intact; and linking those here with small shorter explanations here. Is that okay with you? אומנות (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Glad to hear that we're on the same page with some of your thoughts! Happy to discuss how we best merge some of the sections, so yes if you want to go ahead and edit the draft to be able to show your edits then go ahead! I had been thinking that the "origins" section could be reduced quite a bit if we move a lot of what is there into the actual History of the Eurovision Song Contest article, which would bulk that out and put that into a better place, which keeping a shorter overview of the highlights on the main article. A lot of what I am doing at the minute is just getting ideas and words out of my head and onto the page, and then I plan to read through and edit as I go, but definitely if you have ideas for sections where I'm mostly finished I'd definitely like to hear them! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just started feeling bit uncomfortable and that will be more complicated for me discussing some stuff later on, as I see you keep working hard, along with adding to "Expansion of the contest". Though, my problem isn't with that, I think it looks overall great from my brief browsing on that one. Glad I catch up with you mainly before serious "Participation" reworking, as the "Expansion" and "History" rub some same angle of "Participation". And, even if you and others agree with me, of course I didn't want to make you rework more than what you already work on...
 * In this regards, I do like your direction of shortening "Origins and History". A) As I also thought the same, mainly for the many events mentioned as the Eurovision exchange programmes in the early 1950s. B) Then even easier to place stuff from "Participation" onto that. + Some other stuff I thought of moving from "Participation" to the relatively short "Format" as well, but I will get to that later. I will keep tweaking my work on my computer a bit; and explain along with editing the draft tomorrow (as its very late here; for you probably too, 2 hours after me I think). And again I will revert so it won't complicate all your progressing work, then link them here which will enable revisions differences. Thanks, and good night! אומנות (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * my explanations and linked examples under draft-"Participation", including for your shortened cut-punctuated footnotes. I understand and agree they are more proper for this purpose, but from a paragraph suggestion for both this and the joiners-table, I wanna suggest for another way:
 * Footnotes: From "until 1990 ; East Germany never...", bracketed years+explanations. I used for example a more epitomizing "except for 1976" cancelling "this name" and "that for all others", and enables East Germany reference finish. More Yugoslavia flow - thanks to your shortening, and if I understand 1992 status. I do think if accepted though - worth reinserting 2003-2004-2007 Serbia-Montenegro reincarnations. Also framed: "Four countries...varying terms" which nicely corresponds to more such details. Further, as Australia mentioned at other chapters and my below table-replacement, can even remove, addressing just shifting status-names. My edit with Australia and without. Another option - as individual explanations on the map image + those countries colored/striped.
 * Table paragraph: Framed by decades emphasizing joiners-numbers + geography. Turns as very interesting periodical contrasts, especially 1990-2000s showcasing "...biggest amount... eleven, fifteen..." joining while 2010s "only one...albeit unprecedented" Australia's case. Other stuff, I didn't noticed before: 1950s kept classic-Europe with Nordic touch, while early 1960s-1961 both Eastern/double-Iberian expansion, 1970s Mediterranean and double-Asia and 1980s reaching both EBU's western tips. To show two options, still bit unpolished - bullet points; my least favorite but still replaces table+flag-icons. And my favorite per 2 paragraphs emphasizing 1950s-1980s slow-joining to 1990s-2010s joining-amount and associate-members "makeover". See also on article, not just on the revisions difference.
 * The additional chapters "Expansion", "History" - pointing some joiners: However, my 1-2 paragraphs/bullet options can easily be incorporated onto existing "History" paragraphs which in themselves divided to early and later periods as my favorite option (as I noticed later, 3 before-last paragraphs on your current draft). If we go with this, "Participation" can still be a sub-header, benefiting a 1st division highlight and the map-image for "Origins-History" currently containing only paragraphs. The only other "Participation" angle - Broadcasting area definitions, can easily and should in my opinion be under the anyway short "Format". All this barely, if any, effects your "Expansion" work which goes to details about participation rules. Finally... here are my edits, next to existing general-touching paragraphs at this chapter for amalgamation consideration. And I returned to the way the draft looks under your last edit. Thanks for all your required attention to my layered somewhat situation-complicating edits and thoughts. :) אומנות (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looking through your edits now and there are some interesting things I can see that you're trying to include. I'll publish my responses below. Like I said previously, at the moment I'm just trying to get ideas onto the page, so everything I'm doing is subject to edits and change, but given what you've shown so far, here are my thoughts.
 * Edits 1 and 2: I see what you are trying to accomplish here, but personally I think it feels a bit out of place and a bit bulky. Most of this information would surely be better placed on the country articles rather than on the Eurovision mainpage, since in my opinion this should be an overview of the contest as a whole rather than the full ins and outs of each country's history. I totally see your point about including SCG as part of Yugoslavia note, but as for expanding this into a full paragragh I have reservations.
 * Edits 3 and 4: I feel that most of what you've included in these paragraohs is already included in the table of participating countries, so in fact this would only be repeating what is already there but just expanding upon the geographies of each country. In particular for Edit 3, this would also I believe go against standard Wikipedia style guidelines on when to use bullet point lists (see List dos and don'ts).
 * For Edit 5, although I get where you are coming from with the bolding of the opening of the lines, I feel that this violates MOS:NOBOLD, so I wouldn't recommend it. I don't think bolding should ever be used for more than a few words personally, as otherwise I feel it makes the page look rather "in your face" almost.
 * As I said previously, a lot of what is currently in the "origins and history" section I will most likely move into the History article, so that will be reduced substantially. Sorry I couldn't agree with you more on this. If you have any questions about my comments then please do reply. Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to add everything to this article, then we can break things off into the sub-articles if need be. Pretend they don't exist. I have a feeling there will be a reduction the quantity of offshoot articles at some point anyway. Grk1011 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

of course I appreciate your thoughts and kindness regardless if you disagree, on anything. :-) But, I think we got to few fundamental misunderstandings. Most important for me - to understand when to post: I'm sorry I didn't understand you prefer discussing chapters only after you initially-finished. I based on your project talk page message inviting ideas-feedback already when you opened the draft and also can't know when exactly you initially finish something. Like, I saw you extensively rephrased/added more to "Expansion" chapter, in stages over days, which looks great BTW! And that you shortened those "Participation" footnotes and that you didn't keep working specifically on that - for which I had a different idea, and regardless of your "History" removals plan. So I didn't want causing you keep rephrasing/expanding, then me coming with all these rearranging/editing a-new suggestions. I thought that may upset and cause you redundant efforts, that's why I even hurried to write you today, but now I understand and sorry :) ... So, when you finish first-stage, can you open a section here for specific/general feedback? I'll of course then be happy to keep try help. :-)

Clarifying my proposals stuff:
 * The status is only 3 name-shifting countries - Germany, Yugoslavia, North Macedonia and maybe Australia here too, according and instead of their footnotes which you shortened from the actual article so this info already exists. *From the above - added material about Serbia and Montenegro still makes an overall few-sentences paragraph - for all those 3/4 countries combined which also briefly reflects their overall participation status through the years, according to this general article. Here is what I meant for reinserting more to these 1st paragraph: "...reconstituted itself as Serbia and Montenegro and finally dissolved to the two separate states: Serbia and Montenegro". That's it. And my second+third paragraphs suggestion - for all countries joining by decades - already take care to show the years Serbia and/or Montenegro joined.
 * I meant paragraphs for countries joining by decades instead of the table, not in addition, just as the Germany-Yugoslavia-Macedonia paragraph, instead of the footnotes. Earlier I kept the table+footnotes on the draft because I wanted to give an easy option for you and others to compare my text to those two illustrations, as I tried my best describing what I mean on the comment above and on the edit summaries, sorry it didn't come out clear.
 * "Bullet points" - yeah I understand and thanks for the guidance here, anyway I'm all for 2 paragraphs division and don't like bullet here either; it was to show another option. But I therefore need to tell you that I also based that on the "Rules" appearing as long bullet points sentences (starting with "songs shouldn't exceed 3.5 minutes..."). So notice that when you copy/work on that from the actual-article as well, if its against Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * "Origins and History" - yeah, but I know there are already paragraphs pointing the seven countries who joined in 1956, and first Asian and African countries joining as geographical "landmarks" and such more, which I want to suggest taking advantage of. So even if you wanted to remove those chapters in the future, it's actually good we discussed these now for amalgamating my paragraphs precisely into those existing "Origins and History" 3 paragraphs which I earlier highlighted on the draft.
 * If on the other hand you thought about removing the first paragraphs which talk about Eurovision-ceremonies and background content - its anyway not relevant to the paragraphs I address here.
 * I also just randomly "bolded" the opening sentences of those 3 "History" paragraphs (albeit they started with pointing countries) - so you and others can easily find them and compare to my material beneath them. Didn't mean I want to bold them on the actual article. So, sorry for these confusions from my part and hope my suggestions are clearer now. אומנות (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC) :-)


 * Thanks for clarifying, I certainly didn't mean to discourage you from providing feedback as I definitely welcome ideas from all directions even when I'm formulating the article! I feel that with your ideas on explaining Germany/Yugoslavia/North Macedonia that it works better as footnotes; I think it's important information that should be on the article but because it's quite technical in nature I feel that expanding it into a full paragraph would read as a bit bulky and might not perhaps add any further value.
 * I also believe that including the list of participating countries by year of debut in a table is a better way of presenting this information, as it's a lot more visual and gives you a better overview of which countries debuted when, without having to read through a bunch of text to find the same information. What you contributed about geography and decades was really good, and it's certainly something I've tried to include in the "Expansion" section, but it could be that a lot of what you created might better fit there, so expanding that section to include expansion of the contest between the 60s and 80s.
 * I hope this clarifies what my position is on these points, and overall I think your thoughts are really valuable and I'll certainly work to include them. I will certainly be looking for thoughts and contributions from WikiProject:Eurovision members once I've completed all sections of the article! Of course in the meantime if you have anything further, then please do let me know! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * that's okay, really! :-) ! I wasn't sure if sooner or later is easier for you to get feedback and discuss big ideas, I saw advantages and shortages to both myself. Admittedly, I preferred not to wait, also when, hopefully, I may soon go back to work, and when you finish I may precisely would unfortunately for me, have less time here. :-( As I see for many years and specifically these last days, that you are very kind and communicative, I'm enthusiast at this chance to express ideas for you. Eventually the Participation table+footnotes was the only big thing I saw you started working on, where I thought of a different direction. Now when I see you fully understand my replacement and presentations intentions for that, and still see otherwise, I'm completely fine of course if you disagree and understand your stand, as well as know that you keep working on this after we discussed different options. For now I just remind the option of footnotes as descriptions within the map image with coloring the countries which I suggested in an earlier comment, as I still really dislike this still relatively big inner-article footnotes (though I didn't draft such example) but... we'll talk when you finish. I will later today go back to post under "Lead" for some smaller ideas which are anyway current stuff you already polish, peanuts stuff - easier to discuss. For "Participation" & everything bigger I may have in regards to amalgamations/rearranging - I will gladly look for when you're ready. Thank you for your clarifications and further encouraging message! אומנות (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

1964
Thoughts on the 1964 fire? Clearly you have more sources at your disposal than I right now, so it might be worth checking out some of these claims. Grk1011 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting thought, I'd never heard of this but certainly seems plausible. Most of the sources I have available (the official website, "Songs for Europe") typically mention a fire as the cause, but the language they use is never particularly clear-cut, so it could be one of those cases of "if someone says something enough times it becomes fact". I'd certainly say we should include this new bit of info on the article, potentially appending the current sentence to include this so that all possibilities are covered. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've now updated the "Archive status" section to include this (another Danish source mentioned that it could've been wiped, so included that report as well). Thoughts on language/structure used? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wrote works, though it needs a quick copy edit. The first sentence makes it seem like the television sets were lost over time though lol. Grk1011 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, reading back on it I see what you mean lol! Will fix :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft ready for review
Hi all. Think I've got the draft into a good state now, so hoping I could get a couple of reviews and comments on where it's at right now. Please do let me know if there's anything you'd like to see different, format or layout changes, anything that I've missed that you believe should be added, and any other comments would be amazing! Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks amazing! I really appreciate all the effort you've put into it! I've gotten about half way through and have the following comments:
 * Lead: "longest-running annual international television contest" - makes it sound like a "television contest" when it's a song contest? Also need to add a brief summary of some of the other sections of the article, such as criticism and controversy, cultural influence, and spin-offs.
 * Hosting: Do we need a TBD in the table or can the 2021 row be added when the information is known? The first mention of "Big Five" was in the rehearsals and press conference section. Where else could it be introduced that is more fitting?
 * I plan to continue reading through within the next day or so. Grk1011 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! It's been hard work but feels really amazing to see the progress I've in the past 2 weeks! Comments on your suggestions below:
 * I've modified the lead to change the Guinness reference to "longest-running annual international televised music competition", which brings it closer to the actual record, but bit concerned it might be a bit wordy. Any thoughts?
 * Agreed that the 2021 slogan "TBD" entry isn't needed at this moment, and can be added in again when it is announced.
 * I've expanded the "Format" section to include more info on the shows, to accommodate a new "Big Five" reference, and have also expanded on how the contest is financed. This seems like the most logical area to include the "Big Five" for the first time; could possibly see it maybe in the "Origins and history" section too, but given my thought on cutting and shifting a lot of the contests there into the "History" article perhaps not.
 * I will definitely take a read through again to see where I could expand on summary paragraphs on some sections. Definitely appreciate any more suggestions you have in the coming days! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready to be peer reviewed before a Featured Article nomination. Honestly I would just skip Good Article since that would just basically be another peer review in the grand scheme of things, though less helpful since they're only looked at by one reviewer. Some of the GAs we have don't really have FA in their future, but we know want this article to be a Featured Article again. Grk1011 (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear! I'll move the article over to the mainspace now, attempt to get a history merge of my edits too (which may not work, going by the guide but may as well try!), and put it forward for FA review. Gonna be offline for a few days visiting family but will continue to make minor tweaks as and when over the next couple of weeks! Thanks for your help with suggestions and first review, it's been really helpful and great working with you again! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, will put forward for FA when I'm back! :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I wonder if the Peer Review process might be a good idea before FA? That way you could receive some feedback on the article as a whole in terms of completeness, but also some input on what content should be moved to the sub-pages. Grk1011 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a good idea! Will do that now this evening and continue to make further tweaks in the meantime, try to incorporate some of the other suggestions I've received. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Hey Sims2aholic8, thanks for your will and effort, here is my view, which I know some of it relates to the way the lead looks at the actual article for some years now, not necessarily related to your own edits:
 * Eurovision network -  A fundamental miss. This is the umbrella medium for the countries TV broadcasters, as well as, therefore, the actual thing the contest's named after. The contest started mainly as EBU's desire to experiment with, and expand, TV transmission and programs exchange in 1950s Europe, manifested in this specific network. Also proposed in the past for each Eurovision event article to introduce both EBU and its network as part of a coherent opening definition instead of a circulated "The 1995 Eurovision Song Contest is the 40th edition of the annual Eurovision Song Contest" for example..." Also, should be "is" in these articles, not "was". Let alone, the EBU is mentioned later in the articles but not in the lead, and with 1956's article exception for introducing EBU further stressing this point. So back to here, I strongly suggest inserting the Eurovision network as well.
 * Euroradio -  The Eurovision (network) article also point this, as an umbrella for this medium's type broadcasts, so worth mentioning too, also as the current paragraph's continuation points the contest's essence - original songs submitted to be performed on live television and radio.
 * Cancelled 2020-event at the 1st paragraph, on the other hand -  Pointing of this parenthetical info in a paragraph shaped to focus on the general definition, looks too fringe/alternative; and it's pointed again at the lead's 2nd paragraph anyway, and in the right context of explanations about the length of the contest's existence. Same for "held since 1956", which repeats, at the same context, same 2nd paragraph.
 * "held every year" and "primarily European" -  which leads to pointing the cancelled 2020. Also redundant, after the "an annual international...". + "international" and "primarily European countries" can get accurate and amalgamated with the first replaced by "pan-European".
 * Recent winner -  Don't see the point, and pointing along with the song the singer, writers and composers; and also in the lead. Perhaps "WP:RECENT" refers only to cases of leaving a "blur" period resulting from a contributor's point in time when donating info, expressing "recently" or "lately". However, I do think this rule of thumb should be inclusive of cases which mention a year/date because they are "a most recent" case "for now". So I personally don't flow with this kind of info.
 * Notable artists; overall, I object parenthesis -  especially in the lead, as the 2020 cancellation case. What's important enough to be pointed out in the lead, therefore comes across as a kind of paradoxical intention by appearing in parenthesis in the lead. An option is to not mention their achievements/countries since what's most important here is themselves, these brand names for being successful outside the contest anyway. Or just as easily be hyphenated instead of parenthesis: "Celine Dion - winner for Switzerland". But actually my favorite option here is grouping winners and others like this: "includes two of the contest's winners Celine Dion and ABBA for Switzerland and Sweden respectively?, as well as the two representatives Julio Iglesias for Spain? and Olivia Newton-john for United Kingdom?.
 * I also really like your change to mention these four, indeed strong worldwide notability compared to the current less clear worldwide success selection as Lena for Germany and Dana for Israel. So I support your presentation here.

Back to the 1st paragraph - not entirely sure about the phrasing for the umbrella networks; if it warrants clarifying they signal to countries/areas broadcasters. So overall, this is my proposed presentation for the opening:

"The Eurovision Song Contest (French: Concours Eurovision de la chanson) is an annual pan-European international song competition held every year by the European Broadcasting Union, transmitted (to regional broadcasters?) via its Eurovision and Euroradio networks. since 1956 (with the exception of 2020), with participants representing primarily European countries. Each participating country submits an original song to be performed on live television and radio, then..."

Thanks for your draft, and for your attention. אומנות (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out, you've made some really good points there that I'm sure we can include! The information related to the Eurovision network is included in the "origins" paragraph at present, but it is definitely worth a mention in the lead, especially given your arguments above. As for your points re: recentism, it is definitely a point of contention for me too, which is why I've removed references to 2020 from the lead and will take out the 2019 winner as well. Fundamentally this article should be written with a view that anyone could look at it at any point in the future and (barring any more significant rule changes) it should still be consistently relevant to that time period. Of course facts are going to become out of date, with rule changes and new records, but that entry on recent winner will change every year so it's highly subject to change. You also made a good point regarding parentheses (or as I call them, brackets, see Hiberno-English), so will definitely have a re-write for that (potentially even remove that information entirely, if it's on the artist's articles themselves, and we can include further down the article).


 * Thanks again for your contributions, this is definitely the kind of thing that will help the article get back to the best! Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your quick reply! And for containing my thoughts, for already keeping eagerly working, even accepting a lot of my views on the draft itself! I think the lead looks much better and very good already. I thought yesterday when I came to contact you, that you did a terrific job, per your idea to mention those four worldwide established artists which I noticed for now (still didn't see other stuff you may have changed or added yesterday before we talked). And while on the other hand, most of my views for improvement, if not all, addressed stuff that existed in the lead before you worked on it anyway.
 * I do still want to sharpen some of my views for yours and others consideration. Also out of thinking maybe you still consider some stuff and haven't gotten to change. But if it's because you disagree and see otherwise, of course I accept, and let you keep seeing what others think, maybe all others agree with you. :-)
 * What I wanna keep wondering on is first: "held every year" vs. "annual" and "primarily European countries"+"international" vs. "pan-European". I think if there is an option to epitomize an explanation to one word, its always better especially for a lead and an opening definition flow. Also in the case of "annual" - it catches the essence and purpose of the event's general running procedure as until 2020, and going on from 2021, while "held every year" comes as a somewhat problematic description since in fact it wasn't held every year because of 2020. You understand what I mean?
 * I take into account "pan-European" as something more layered than my understanding capture; if it means something somewhat different or beyond: can be "countries all over the world but still connected to a European organization or connected to some kind of European flavor". In other words, if this term has a more complex/several meaning/s and can confuse the reader, I understand your preference to avoid it.
 * Continuing from the above: I wanna clarify that I actually do think its worth mentioning 2020 cancellation in the lead as the most unique thing to happen in the contest's history eventually, just that it shouldn't like "interfere" with the generic essence-definition of the contest as an annual thing which should be served by the opening definition, and as it was already also mentioned in the appropriate (to my taste) existence-running explanation at the 2nd paragraph, and albeit that it shouldn't appear in brackets. But also, yeah! I just earlier noticed how the current article even repeats the running-period and 2020 cancellation for a 3rd time at the 2nd paragraph, in the phrase of "held for 64 years until cancelled in 2020" and adds "due to the COVID19". Yeah, I think that's too much and repetitive and I agree you removed that for the draft.
 * The change from "song" to "music competition" - I prefer the first since its more specific as anyone involved (singer, songwriters) are producing music with lyrics and singing, while music covers also instrumental pieces.
 * I know my proposal for "transmitted via" the networks was not entirely "cooked", I do still wonder though if we can come up with a way of attaching "Eurovision and Euroradio networks" to the first EBU mention, to explain the name and existence medium of the contest, as part of the very opening definition? Also by that, to avoid repeating "EBU" later at the 1st paragraph? In Hebrew it's easier to even mention the networks before EBU, as on "its behalf"/"under EBU as to finish the definition with the overall EBU organization. This is how I at least shaped the definition on the Hebrew Wikipedia for example, also on the individual events articles. So maybe something like "transmitted to national broadcasters via the Eurovision and Euroradio networks on behalf of/under the European Broadcasting Union"? Or a better description you may have? If not, I understand, and by your response I can anyway be happy to see and learn further from you about this in case you can accurate me or have other ideas. :-)
 * Yeah I'm happy you also don't see the need for recent winner, and I stress that for me it's also because it's not notable as every edition produces a new winner, while Portugal 2017 and Norway 2009, and Ireland 4 wins in the 1990s achievements, are noteworthy by nature of breaking records, and with that records which will likely be beaten only few years from now, so won't need to be updated in the lead every year. That's a good example for how something notable goes hand in hand with lasting for a long stable period. :-) I do also wonder though if it the singers and songwriters should be mentioned instead of just pointing 2017 Protugal, Ireland 1992, 1993 etc' in the lead, if anyway its a summary for their therefore required appearance under a dedicated chapter later in the article.
 * That's also like you removed countries for worldwide established artists from the draft's lead now, which I think it's the best in terms of focus and flow! "...notable artists include Abba, Celine Dion..." I like it.


 * Okay, so that's pretty much all my most detailed thoughts for the lead. I will be happy of course if you want to give feedback and further thoughts for my last wonderment when you can. Now I will just answer to your points and when I understand, shortly, without keeping with more proposals and thoughts of my own, to step aside and let you wait for others and talk to others now deeply. Thanks again for taking the dawning task on yourself and for all your work in this field! :-) אומנות (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your comments and suggestions! I think it's always a good thing to learn from each other and that we can collaborate and reuse good ideas from other versions of Wikipedia as well, so thanks for contributing what works well on the Hebrew version. I'll take on each of your points in turn:
 * Yes that's a good point you raised about "held every year" vs. "annual" etc. I'll take a re-read of the lead to see if there's a way of streamlining it.
 * I think it's quite a tricky thing to convey the scope of the contest nowadays, especially since Australia has entered the fold, but even before then with Israel, Morocco and the Caucuses and the different definitions of what counts as Europe. I included "pan-European" in the JESC section as a counterpoint to the Scandinavia-only MGP Nordic, but there may be a case to rather use "international" in the same way as the main contest, given Australia, Kazakhstan and other countries which straddle Europe and Asia compete.
 * Yeah on reflection including the 2020 cancellation in the lead would be considered relevant, and as you say it's finding the right balance of coverage when it will definitely be included further down the article. I'll have to take that one away with me to see how I can include it in the best way.
 * Song vs. music is a good point, especially since no live music has been used now for a number of years.
 * Again I'll have to take this one away on how we include Eurovision network in the lead in the best way. Of course you don't want to have many run-on sentences, but it's a good point re. repeating the same phrases or acronyms in a paragraph.


 * Thanks again for your contributions, and of course feel free to continue to chip in to where you feel relevant. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the further considerations cooperation!
 * Yeah I think the solution for 2020 cancellation's already lies at the actual article 2nd paragraph opening, but perhaps like this: "had been held broadcasting every year since its inauguration in 1956 with the exception until 2019, due to the cancellation of the cancelled 2020 edition". As the scheduled 2021-and-on leaves out only 2020, the "until 2019" seems unneeded "full stop" impression, at the actual article.
 * Thanks for your further thoughts about song vs. music - good point about no live music either, just stressing my view stems from competing songs, while instrumental could have always be performed only as side-kicks, for the show's general entertainment.
 * Thanks for your further thoughts about "International" and the umbrella networks as well! I also once proposed "international" for individual articles :-) but then me and others accepted it ain't for countries randomly spread across the world, and I didn't think about pan-European then. Following your explanations here, and if I do understand the term correctly - I do however want to take a minute: Generally west Asia and north Africa seem "pan" to me by that the EBU's signal, as a European governing body, reaches them along with its other programmers exchange, and also having European populations or other influences by the continent; Australia's mostly western population which experience the contest since the early 1980s; Cyprus and Armenia as culturally European; and the west tip of Kazakhstan, Turkey and north Caucasus within Georgia and Azerbaijan which is geographically Europe; even when United States joins its as associate EBU member. So the EBU is the "glue" here. So I refer to this, but, if you still see this as tricky and I understand the complication here to define, as well as your knowledge for some of these geographically and culturally Eurasian and Australia, which is indeed quite a world spread especially come the U.S, I can accept "international".
 * And yeah I enjoy talking to you and in general about such stuff but so that people can keep up and participate with their own replies and further ideas as I loaded a lot here, I will give it about a week to raise anyway small and not so urgent 1-2 other stuff I further thought about. I made a mistake that I didn't create this discussion with level-2 sub-section instead of just bullet points, to dedicate to each of these things to react to, within this lead discussion. With that I think we quite easily managed to cover impressive developments and openness, and I thank you for your ongoing invitation for me to raise other stuff I can think about! אומנות (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ho, following your previous comment that you consider about 2020, I immediately reacted here and just now saw you updated the draft. I think a just stating the cancellation keeps the focus on the annual general flow, and teases the reader to go read further the chapter of what happened in 2020, even to see over there the COVID19 reference. I leave it for you to consider, if you want to further take a look at my suggestion above. :) אומנות (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your comments! I've included a number of them already in the draft over the couple days, especially the COVID reference in the lead. I'll be sure to consider your points when I continue to fill out the article. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey yeah I checked the draft today to think about other stuff and other chapters to talk in the future, and was surprised to see you already implemented and share the same opinion with more of my views as well! I always stay open to that my proposals in themselves can be improved, as with the insertion of the networks that I know has something problematic. Actually one of the other things I still wanted to keep talking about in few days was the pointing of singers/songs for the lead-highest scores achievements, but I see you now present it too as just the country-year-entry, linked, which I really think it's the best! The 2020 edition phrase was even what I already saw at 1st paragraph, just wrong place and inappropriate brackets for me :). It really looks great at the 2nd paragraph opening, the way you put it after "since 1956". I also noticed you removed Australia joining in 2015 from the lead. It also bothers me in the current lead. Thanks for that too, you save me the trouble discussing that haha... and thanks for all your ongoing work these past 2 days! אומנות (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on finishing adding all the desired material and thanks for posting you're ready for further feedback! I decided to also wait with these lead stuff until you let know you're done. I first post smaller suggestions about 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Then if we agree, I can proceed for more layered suggestions for 1st paragraph, or otherwise alternate; as some of it correlates with the 2nd-4th following material ones. I also changed on the article in regards to the 1964 DR "bosses" to "management", as a usually better wording. But if you specifically wanna describe as the first, feel free to revert! So you're welcome to see my further suggestions for the "Lead". אומנות (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, best scores and number of wins:
 * Sole Portugal-2017 and Norway-2009 entries links: make an even further flow and tightens to focus on the highlight – the specific entry, as "Portugal's 2017 entry" single link. For my view, there's also no need for additional link to the contests and countries in ESC themselves at this context, anyway.
 * Pointing points: For those Portugal-2017 & Norway-2009. I thought from a week ago and let that settle with me; still think there's no value by no comparison. The points can be pointed under "Winners" or another chapter – along with next highest ones for an understanding of their amount-gap.
 * Voting system: "…in place since 2016…" = "previous…between 1975-2015." The 1st can be therefore dropped to be left with "under current", then the previous system period pointing.
 * Eventually all above 3 allow attaching Norway-2009 right after Portugal-2017 as both being the highlight here, then describing previous system+its period, for Norway achievement.
 * Glorious truly fantastic Ireland :-) Since the highlight manages to be demonstrated - via description of most victories including 4 most tightest wins - So, no need to specify those 4 years, as the other 3 wins (1970, 1980, 1987) and other specific years for other stuff which we removed and can be expanded upon under the chapters like "Winners". Also "with seven wins in total": "In total" repeats "most wins" intention. And, just pointing "Seven" enables moving "wins" to "four wins" instead of repeating "victories" twice. Not that repeating same word is that terrible, but gives a richer vocabulary feel, which I also see you always aim for.
 * 4th paragraph: Since we include best selling singers, worth to point 2 notable singles. Especially "Nel blu di pinto di blu" which exceeded 22 million!! copies as truly within the top 20 or even 10 best selling of all time. Even though it's from all versions of different singers combined, still it relates to this Eurovision song. And "Save Your Kisses for Me".
 * See my last 3 edits - "management", 3rd paragraph proposals, and self revert of for the last. Thanks! :-) אומנות (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And I appreciate your comments once again! Responses below:
 * * Personally I feel that explaining highest scoring winners like "Portugal's 2017 entry" to be a bit clunky, and I feel that the text at the minute has a better flow to it. I do see your point when it comes to including the points total, and that without a comparison as seen in the "Winners" article it does feel like including that does lack value; same goes for including Norway's win under the old system for the same reasons. I'll have a think about how best to describe this, as it might need a bit of an overhaul to give it more value.
 * * Yep I see your point with spelling out the years for Ireland's streak, and that putting just the decade is probably a better fit for the lead; this information is already included in the "Winners" section of the article too to be fair, so we're just repeating ourselves in the lead.
 * * I think maybe adding specific songs to the lead might go too far beyond what should be the scope of the lead section, but definitely worth including "Volare" in the "winning songs" section (even if it's not a winner but thanks for highlighting that one to me, will try and write something about non-winning hits! :-) )
 * Definitely if there's anything else you'd like to comment on then please go ahead! (Might be easiest for other sections to put it in the section below to make it easier to see everything at once! :-) ) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick attentions and implementing some of my suggestions, considering my comments, and your fantastic, and dedicated work on the article! Sure I'm discussing just lead stuff here, but would post other potential stuff at page-bottom, and as I have detailed comments for individual chapters, will put under individual headers. :-)
 * Good call about removing Norway-2009, and I don't think you should bother explaining other highest scorers value here, if you meant for the lead. I questioned Norway's 2009 value, too. I'm with you on that. The current system produced the highest scorer ever anyway, and there were several voting systems with other points percentages records, anyway.
 * In relation to above, I focus on shortening current lead stuff, before I, personally, advice with you and others about adding stuff. But at this chance, it's worth pointing how many voting methods occurred (without periods) in the lead, and perhaps explain current method. With that I ask: is there a need to also point "since 2016", if only current system highest-scorer is introduced? For example: To date the contest has changed its voting method eight times. Under the current system, adding up points from the public and the juries(?), the highest scoring song is..." (so without "since 2016", and gave 8 as an example, didn't check how many methods).
 * "Portugal's 2017 entry" - Do you mean feels bit clunky cause all 3 words linked? Cause we can link just 2017 entry, and remove "the 2017 contest" which is implied already. Even just linking "Amar pelos dois" instead! The "Portugal's" attachment-phrasing is anyway left under current version.
 * Regardless of text, I feel its further heavier to link 4 times now, for: Portugal in contest, Portugal 2017, song itself, and feel its unrelated to link 2017 contest; that "Amar Pelos Dois" is the attraction, maybe also Portugal-2017 article link. With that I do agree that now when you only address this song (without Norway-2009), it's worth pointing and link the song's name.


 * And I'm sorry but I also don't see the need to add back Portugal's singer & songwriter. Though I understand now its a stand alone (without Norway), to me song's name is sufficient. If that's also to do with extending back the paragraph - anyway you're going to add a lot of stuff to the lead and this paragraph. Same goes for Ireland's victories, you now added the kind of superlative "in the contest's history" (after "most victories"), which is understandable from the context. My opinion in general is to avoid "in the contest" phrases which I see repeating a lot in articles.
 * Also for Ireland, I refer to the actual article - "with seven wins, including four times". I don't know if you still consider here, so I'm pointing again with relation to the actual article. For what I wrote (that "Seven" already indicates "in total victories" and enables shortening and 4 "wins" instead "victories" repetition) so please let me know your thoughts for this when you can. Oh and thanks for the "in 1990s"! I later noticed my "early" 1990s is indeed inaccurate cause of 1996 win (late 1990s) but didn't have energy to edit again... Glad we agree here and thanks for implementing that. :-)
 * I do feel that pointing "Volare" shouldn't be considered beyond the lead scope, since it's equivalent to point some few best selling artists and "Amar pelos dois", as you greatly did. But since its songs and not artists, let alone a best selling via combined sales of many different artists, I'm on board if you wanna keep it outside the lead. And yeah, I forgot to point before that "Volare" and other non-winning songs benefit to be added under chapters. Great work on adding Volare too within the article!!
 * It's important for me to stress - I don't mean to nit-pick and burden. I sincerely comment all this cause I wanna help you the best way I can think of, and for stuff I'm not sure I got your view on, and as I have fun sharing my detailed thoughts precisely on this polishing stuff, when someone open minded as yourself do this and I can advice and express from the side. :-) אומנות (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I do have total faith that your comments and suggestions are meant to help improve the article, so they're always welcome with me! Yes I added "Amar pelos dois" back in mostly to bulk up that sentence, because I felt that it seemed to trail off without it. Right now I am starting to think we should potentially remove that entire paragraph altogether now (including Ireland as the most wins), since as you mentioned I have included quite a few instances where I've kinda repeated the same theme in a sentence in order to bulk it out. It might make more sense for that paragraph to close out the "Origins and history" section of the article instead, but let me have a think on it some more.
 * Going back to "Portugal's 2017 entry", I see what you mean about trying to make things more succinct, but my concern isn't with the links but the actual words: for me it sounds a bit too condensed, as if you're trying to push the sentence in to reduce the amount of words, at the expense of the natural flow. Again this is just my opinion, but I feel "Portugal's entry at the 2017 contest" just sounds better to my ear.
 * I think my concern with including "Volare" in the lead is principally about the potential exponential expansion scope, as in if you add that song, how many other songs would warrant inclusion, which might then make that paragraph just continue on endlessly. "Volare" is definitely a great example of a song from the contest that went on to great success outside of the contest, but with 1,500+ songs in the history of the contest, how do you define which ones warrant inclusion in the lead? Those artists I included came straight from the best-selling music artists section, and I could only see those 4 artists in the list so it made more sense to focus on those.
 * Hope this explains my thoughts better. Please to shout if you have any questions. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding, it's not for granted on Wikipedia that someone takes so many thoughts and small wording comments always in good spirit. And to know I can keep freely discussing everything and think along with you in fun spirit, so really thank you!
 * Yep I also started questioning current highest-scoring lead necessity, following your Norway removal, per several voting methods, which come and go. Under "History"/"Winners"/"Format" we can even add all several methods' highest scoring songs / percentage! I also edited/expended info in 1956 ESC about percentage assumptions for the winner to the assumed voting method of it! :-) We will also avoid "current"-touch in the lead (even if more of a longer-lasting record). Was afraid raising this to not complicate things. But I support you on removing Portugal from the lead!
 * Ireland - I will first say it's much more impressive as all time record, compared to Portugal's "under specific system". But if after you'll think more, you still feel strongly about removing it from the lead, I can be fine with that, from a point of Ireland's record also bound to change, maybe, someday, and by that touching "current". So these 2 sides consideration maybe help you decide...
 * Thanks for extending your thoughts for "Portugal's 2017 entry" for me. I suggested for shortening, but based on my view for sufficient "2017 entry" instead of the already implied "the contest". If you're bothered by the "Portugal's 2017 entry" ordering, I just make this final suggestion: "Portugal's entry in 2017". Keeping same non-condense wording order (as you explained), and minus "the contest"? If you still prefer otherwise, I now at least came to full conclusion and of course respect your stand. I will just advice to not use it several times in a paragraph as well as "in the contest's history" for Ireland. Especially if you meant the last is to extend the paragraph, as you'll add more/instead-material here. I see in general a lot "in the x contest" like on "Other countries" sections on annual articles, so that's why it was also important for me to air it here. :)
 * Also if under a chapter, not in the lead, and further if for other voting methods' highest-scorers: What do you think eventually about delinking from those 4 Portugal/other scorers references, even if you keep same wording? I still think under a chapter its best to link just those songs names. I also still support without pointing singer/songwriters for those under a chapter.
 * Best selling - I agree. What I pointed, "Volare" and UK's 1976 "Kisses", was all I meant. :-) I'm quite sure those 2 (maybe 2-3 more ESC songs) managed more than around 5-millions copies sales. That's the standard I based on, similar to the 4 singers mentioned. I thought of even just mentioning "Volare" and point in the lead it's at the top 10 best selling songs ever (!) I now checked again to refresh my memory, and its supposed to be the 6th best selling song (not single though) of all time! Its not mentioned at "best selling singles" article cause of its combined different versions sales. And for this reason, that you address "best selling singles" (and not songs), I understand if you don't want to mention any songs including "Volare" in the lead. :-) אומנות (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've made a few edits to the lead now, removing Portugal as highest scoring winner and instead including Germany as the most frequest participant, a feat which I feel is more long-term than the voting system, especially since it's only 4 years old! Will have a think about how we might want to include records like highest scoring winners elsewhere in the article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow ... The move of active and associate members to is precisely what I wanted to bring after discussing the 3rd-4th paragraph; you dramatically progressed me now too with my more layered planned offers for the opening info, also rearranging some material according to the chapters order. And now indeed the 3rd paragraph mostly transmits "Format", after the 2nd corresponds to "History". And wow... good call about Germany, as another even more stable kind of presence-"record". That's exactly the kind of stuff that should be added here! And among the many stuff you will keep add to the lead.
 * And please don't kill me... again what you did is great to me too but in regards to "the contest" term, but unlike with Portugal which I understood, I wanna show clearer separate-sentence additions. Mostly 4th paragraph, anyway starts with "Performing at the Eurovision Song Contest" then repeats "the contest" twice. There's no need. For 3rd paragraph, passes better now, as first time & encapsulating both Germany+Ireland; thanks for removing "in the contest's history". Still don't think it's necessary here, but mostly 4th paragraph already introducing "at the contest". I'm sure it won't stand in the way of passing "FA" and maybe the reviewer will even like it won't care. Just wanted to get to the bottom, and make a draft edit so you see how it looks. Now I'll be okay with whatever you choose.
 * Celine Dion before ABBA - I always liked to follow those best selling singles and articles myself! Now following our talks looked again and Celine has about 173 million certified - as well as more claimed - sales, compared to ABBA (~60 million). You placed ABBA first cause its associated with the most popular song of the contest? Cause anyway the lead here address their outside success and not popularity within the contest, and as you ordered Julio and Olivia according to descending sales, to me Celine should be first. Great work again, now with Germany! :) אומנות (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your edits to the lead! I just wanted to explain my reasoning for bringing back the previous version here, didn't want to just revert back without explaining myself. Hope you understand!


 * I can see why you'd like to call the contest "principally European", however it conflicts a little in my mind of how the contest is in real life: although the participants are primarily representing European countries, the broadcast of it has been and is worldwide, including the Americas, Asia, Africa and over the internet, so I think calling the contest a European contest is really limiting its scope. That's why I think the current wording of international contest and European contest works better.


 * While I feel the Eurovision network is an important facet of the contest, its history etc., personal preference I feel it just works better within the second sentence, especially once we describe the contest as in my comment above. Describing the contest first as a song contest (with participants and songs) and then a television show (via the networks) I think also works best.


 * I also feel trying to get active/associate members into the first paragraph might be a bit "too much, too soon"? We don't want to overwhelm the reader with too much information too early on is my thinking, so I think including a reference in the 3rd paragraph is a better fit.


 * While I appreciate where you are coming from with wanting to include the growth of the contest, relegation and qualifiers in the lead, again it's a little bit like above with "too much, too soon". I feel the lead should be for a general overview of the contest, and those sort of details are maybe too in-depth for a casual reader at that stage in the article and are better served by being covered in other sections. I think the history section covers a lot of this as well, so it is covered quite early on in the article.

Once again, all these points are personal preferences, and happy to discuss further here, and happy to get further views from other users if necessary. Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi I will explain my overall lead approach so maybe we agree on some aspects and come up with slight different ways, if possible. אומנות (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Primarily European" – as we grasped few outside-Europe participants and was in article. Now that you bring broadcast: I say open-definition is about content, event fill-meaning. International isn't understandable here for airing. Like defining national-Italian Sanremo, east-European 1993-relegation; despite other countries stations + web-streams, which is anyway beneath as – external additional lead scope. So "international"+"Primarily European" opening reads as "participants" inner-ambivalence. Also it therefore contradicts what you said about describing first as contest and later as television show, precisely since "international" (for broadcast) appears at very opening.
 * Networking at very opening perfectly links contest's-name as the medium of then pointed organizer-EBU + more highlight of contest's enabling-reasoning, as chapter's programming exchange-idea. In turn, 1st paragraph focus direct link: "submit "-"vote" actions; instead of "…submit…to be performed on TV & radio, transmitted to broadcasters via…", also reads somewhat tangled & repeats "countries' "songs"/"EBU's" we both expressed we wanna avoid.
 * So EBU tucked in between international and primarily seems cut-in and as within a dual participants explanation, as well the networks between song and vote; instead of focusing on medium+organizer then countries actions.
 * I also deliberated, and want to explain, that I like most to leave an opening definition as its own small paragraph "logline" to then "synopsis" for rest of the lead. Logline as for the contest's name + network + organizer. And thought to amalgamate the "Each country submit and votes…" as into the 3rd paragraph's EBU members opening. Eventually I decided to edit this into 1st paragraph. And still, 3rd paragraph points the abundantly clear "eligible to participate", after active and associate-"invited" ; = "eligible".
 * We can think, if readers wanna know via a brief lead-reference that there are chapters about relegations ahead; Further – for readers only looking at the lead as summary function and don't wanna further read even to the 1st History chapter – will they like to know the contest dramatically grew to warrant relegations? Will they ask themselves "how come all 52 countries participate"; is it all in 1 evening or how else? (As indeed 40+ participate every year). To me trying to think as a reader, the answer to these is yes.
 * And I feel an FA reviewer will touch that, more so will say in general that the lead needs more attention to the varied chapters. The current "52 participants"+2 countries records (Ireland, Germany), only touches "Participation"-pointing aspect while neglecting "History", "Format", "Expansion". Mostly, as we point 2 specific countries, I don't see why inclusive relegation procedures (even just pointing "relegation" to increasing newcomers) is too much in the lead.
 * For this, I tried another edit in the article with further general-brief relegation description, which still makes it clear there is a process to accommodate all participants in one year's edition. If you still sees it as also too much, then revert.
 * Ultimately, I see the lead as a provider of attaching what's related with as less wording/alternative repetitions as possible, as well highlights of all following chapters within a still short to medium 3-4 lead paragraphs. That is per info which is considered – to begin with – as warranting its own chapter. Let alone the appearance of relegation procedures on several chapters. And the reason the 1st thing popped for me to add to the lead, is mainly thanks to your great work of "Expansion" besides more chapters dealing with this, which you also extended. :-) And as the minor-general 3rd opinion also to add other aspects to the lead.
 * I do understand your thinking, as a reader and worker on the whole article, that everything appears later on. But I consider mostly readers who only look at the lead then also think about the possibilities of the FA reviewer looking at a summary function, and then again anyway my lead feedback as a reader – which stems from your good "Expansion" "Format" chapters extension. If you still completely disagree with me, I respect that and as always you can revert also my 2nd further brief edition of relegation I now added. While I also think it should be longer avtually to specify semis, televised and predetermined relegation procedures. Other than that I won't attempt to add anything to the lead if you still feel strongly against extending it.
 * I also reshaped the footnotes which I worked on my computer, following your preference to keep as such and as I showed examples on the talk, for taking advantage to shorten and simplify further, based on their reliance by pointing to/from already clear details on "Participants" table. And we only talked about that you like to keep as footnotes. So, hope you like that, or slightly tweak if you find even better ways. Anyway, those were almost all the stuff I worked on my computer which I wanted to edit.
 * So now I could share my deepest lead-thoughts, what I think we should ask about the common reader, FA reviewer, and my personal ordering preference, with also detailing for healthy communication that I understand if you may still disagree with my current edits.


 * Thanks for your comments above and for your further edits. I've rephrased some of what you added earlier today, and have retained the inclusion of the relegation and semis in the lead as well, which hopefully is a good compromise solution.
 * I do understand what you mean about the "international" vs. "primarily European" comparison. I feel that the present wording works a bit better, as I believe it balances between the contest and broadcast elements: as in primarily European participant countries in an international contest that is broadcast worldwide. That and I feel even just "Eurovision" as a name would give most readers a sense that it's European in origin.
 * I also took a stab at rewording the "participants" footnotes, hopefully to include a lot of what you saw and wanted to condense down. Again hopefully this works well as a compromise position.
 * Please do add any further comments you may have, happy to accommodate where I can. :-) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I appreciate the flexibility, for which I shortened your good explanation, also as I actually agree with you when to avoid more prolong references in the lead and alternate repeating ways, though great for chapters and I'm impressed from your overall writing. We are generally on the same page, why I earlier today shortened further to what I thought would most accommodate your approach of "too much too soon" while still show the reader/FA in general reference by pointing relegation. Especially people just want to read a quick summary for different chapters. I shortened stuff which technically seem already clear, like "relegation = reduce the number... and also keeps clearance by the 2000s semis. Overall I like that you re-added clearly about the 1990s for relegations and 2000s for semis, and your phrase of "one evening". And I do think this overall reference will be much better with an FA reviewer as well.
 * I understand and appreciate you want to highlight the contest worldwide broadcast prestige, it's just to me already greatly highlighted as an external-extra phenomena at the lead's continuation, as well my overall cut-in "EBU" then separately "Network" personal preference problem. But also technically, my main reservation leans on that "international" at the very opening isn't understandable as broadcast since its expected to define the content-participants of the event itself, so "Primarily European" afterwards looks as though alternate-repetitive to describe international participants. To sharpen further - it seems understandable only if you clarify "...is an internationally broadcast song competition, organized by the EBU, and featuring primarily European countries". But to me it's still like defining at the opening of Sanremo "...is a festival broadcast in Europe/internationally, organized by RAI, featuring Italian singers" instead of saying "National Italian festival" and later talk about its broadcast elsewhere. So I'm sorry but for me it just doesn't sit well. I will have to stay in disagreement about this. Anyway I don't think it can be a problem for FA and apparently not to others since that stuck in the lead for a long time, but I do appreciate your approach to to international.
 * For the footnotes - Yeah the main thing for me for Germany, is to keep it simple without repeating "in 1990" " in all contest", "but on one contest", so I did manage to achieve that although I also like your version as also keeping clear of repetitions. I did however also did that for a simple sentence without brackets also to standardize as the Yugoslavia's and Macedonia's footnotes. Do you see a need for the brackets for the years or can we remove those? Other than that, I also thought if "German reunification" is a must but seemed like a long-accepted term so didn't wanna mess with that. So I like you removed that and based on that made this different footnote for Germany. :-) אומנות (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Final stuff I wanna discuss, for the current lead, which I thought of already how can be added and would love to edit but like to know if you see feat.
 * From above, I like to know what you think for removing the brackets from Germany's footnote as we made simpler more flowing phrasing, and already a sided-footnote form, and to match the other footnotes regularly pointing countries names.
 * 2nd-3rd-4th paragraphs rearrangements with turning them to 2 paragraphs. That's by swapping "active and associate 52 participants...Ireland's wins" info to 2nd paragraph while "one of the longest running programmes...600 million viewers" to the very end. This matches order of "History"-"Format"-"Participation"-"Expansion" lead-info we added. Broadcasting and viewing alongside and after best selling artists+songs gives it one more highlight as you like by finishing the lead, which also serves the lead's highest note finish of overall viewing prestige alongside best sales. Annual editions articles leads also finish with this, according to chapters order. Talking about other countries at the end, also why I see the broadcast as an extra, bonus. Also and mostly, technically in this article, corresponds to the last chapters dealing with overall broadcast and viewers critiques and public perceptions. And I also think in general the lead should be in same chapters order as well think, that FA includes that.
 * Within the broadcasting lead info - I can also remove specific other countries broadcasting which are anyway pointed the same way under the chapter. This enables a flowing sentences for then also starting with "one of the longest annual running programmes" while the record for "longest annual international music competition" remains at 2nd paragraph after "History" aspect for pointing its run from 1956. So in new 3rd paragraph - start with "one of the longest running", to online broadcast since 2000 and finish in same flow with the overall 100 to 600 million viewers.
 * About Germany, wanted to say for sometime but I talked first on other stuff: it actually participated in all editions, and now with the relegation info even simpler to highlight it as the only country to do so, and can add "including submission to one relegation round". This enables leaving UK info as the longest having televised appearance. Or to just say Germany is the only country to participate in all editions and leave its 1996 submission and Uk consecutive appearance for the detailed chapters. אומנות (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I see you added "67 winners to the lead". To me that's like Netherlands 2019 as it's bound to change every year. Another thing in regards to Ireland - remember you said maybe its wins record too much for the lead? I think and now see myself that maybe that's also to do with pointing its 4 tight wins, which is maybe better to be pointed as is already within the chapter/s. All this eventually enables further briefer mention to Germany is competing in all editions, Ireland just pointing its most-7 wins, and perhaps leaving UK or remove.
 * And in general - Controversy, politics brief mention and in principal everything making a 1-level chapter is best summarized in the lead as well, possibly with creating a 4th paragraph for that, if my above suggestions are okay with you and I can edit the current lead to overall 3 paragraphs, from 2-3-4 turning to 2 ones. אומנות (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your great insights! I've gone ahead and included a bunch of them already, as I do agree with you on a lot of these.
 * I reformatted the Germany footnote, please do feel free to take a stab as well if you see any further room for improvement.
 * I went ahead and condensed and reformatted the lead as you described; wasn't aware that the lead was supposed to align with the structure, but it does make sense! Again, please do feel free to expand upon this if you wish. I would be keen to see what you would like to include in the lead from the "controversies" section, so please do add another paragraph if you feel up for it.
 * Yes I see your point for not including the 67 songs, I reintroduced that mostly to expand that sentence, since by adding UK appearances it felt a little broken off. Removing the UK reference has fixed that so no need to include it now.
 * For the Germany 1996 entry, I would be reticent to include this in the lead, mostly given that the EBU doesn't consider it a proper German entry and it's not included in the participating songs for the country on the Eurovision website (see here). I think it is a valid point that is covered in the "Expansion" section, and even though Germany has entered every contest they've not participated at every live event, so I think adding that caveat to the lead would be slightly leaning out of scope.
 * Please do reach out if you have any other questions, and please feel free to edit the article as you see fit; Be bold and all that! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Origins and History
Hi, I can now approach this chapter; I'v decided to remove few events as you see, as I think such can instead be described in general as the nature of Eurovision experiments and programming, while I left one notable example for FIFA; also still without pointing specific year and Swiss location when the first is also understandable from the paragraph and the following paragraph "Summer Season" and then to 1955 contexts. And as in general, I suggest removing info such as hotels, cities; just pointing a country and/or instead of a city to match everything as anyway country relates to broadcaster handling the meeting while city could had been another. Also some vice presidents names and maybe further to few broadcasters presidents, unless they progressed something notable in direct relation to the contest and not just for "Eurovision" and networking. Overall I see value in all paragraphs you extended, but just these kind of details I mentioned to shorten which are within them; as more of non-directly related to understand the contest's creation, especially if you add this info to the "History of the Contest" separate article, these are better there. There's another paragraph with some problematic sourced facts, and details, also not something complicated, but first just this. אומנות (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify I prefer you do it, as you'll know better in regards to this rest stuff of hotels, presidents/vice, and cities removals - in relation to what you plan to show on the contest's history dedicated article. And as I also don't want to touch and trim too much of your material, especially in case you still prefer to present some of this stuff here and didn't think yet how to present them at the history article. אומנות (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your comments! I think that's a good point on removing some of the extraneous events from 1954, to streamline it a bit. These can certainly be moved over to the History article when I get round to redeveloping that out. This could again be more something for the History article, but I think keeping info on the meeting sites, i.e. the hotels, is quite important. I understand the need to streamline but I think giving the whole information on where these decisions were made in the early days of the contest is the sort of thing as an encyclopaedia should be included. However I'm sure a lot of this will transfer over, which is why I've not been touching this section too much. Finding the time between work and life to develop that article has been a bit more difficult over the past few weeks but I'm hoping to get some time this weekend to work on the History article. I do appreciate you holding back on editing this section for the time being and I'm sure that following this weekend your comments will be invaluable! :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you too, and again for your last appreciation at lead above! Yeah I expected you won't get round the other article, and easier for me as gradually progress with you. I'm still not back to my job, and only have energy to this Wikipedia article. And for this chapter I'm not just holding back but also after you work it, I only write here, especially if you plan big-complex changes. I will also appreciate if you share, when you know if you plan removing complete sections? To me it's only those further specific following details I mentioned.
 * On "Origins-History" I like seeing about 90%; it concludes valuable relevant meetings and contest progress trademarks. I understand you mean to give specific and complete info, as perceiving as lacking to just state a country. But the broadcaster with his country alone already covers up what needs to be understand. Also some presidents happening to be managers at the time and working on advancements for the network in the pre-contest era. Unlike Marcel Bezencon working directly for the contest development (even an award named after him within it), for example. And, broadcasters' full titles. The reader here won't be bothered by not knowing those, as long as he understand the meetings managements and purpose for the sake of the network then leading to the contest creation. But I feel he can otherwise get bit distracted especially in this article covering much varied material. This info will be still noticeably shorter, as you say "streamlined", but I also mean I feel the above is insignificant here anyway, non ad-hock for the contest history and progress. And the hat-note refers already to the "History" article.
 * For example, the important info about a meeting in England with BBC for founding the network and in Italy with RAI for founding the contest, already serves the purpose; "Imperial" hotel in Turquoy and "Palazzo Corsini" in Rome, and vice presidents and BBC and RAI/RTF full names - these don't help understand it any better unless they had specific significance but then there would have been statements in regards to that. So I see removing this as serving better purpose of focus and relevance, for this article. There are also issues about Australia and as I wrote another paragraph with problematic details (and as once wrote overlapping "Participation") but wanted to rehash this first. And anyway I won't mind if you happen to remove those other stuff since I didn't raise as I think they should be removed.
 * BTW for "the" reasoning of only one cancelled edition, I understand what you mean, but it's still clear it's one. "the" looks as though it's already known, when it's just introduced; an unknown fact. So just my view here as per your reasoning I still think it should be "a" unless it's considered an inappropriate English, that's a different case. אומנות (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying your comments! A lot of what you outline I agree with, and I plan to implement when I develop the History article further this weekend, particularly the names/locations information which is more relevant to a separate article. This section is very bloated currently, slightly on purpose just for getting ideas onto the page, so I'll definitely work on this further when it's all separated.
 * The "a" vs. "the" debate I understand where you're coming from with this, however for a number of reasons I think "the" is the better choice. It may come down to people reading things differently, as I don't read "the" in this context as meaning that it's an already established fact, and actually if anything I think putting it down as "the" also helps facilitate intrigue with the reader, raising questions such as "why was it cancelled?", "what happened in 2020?" which I don't think you get when you use "a". There is also a slight point to be made as well that, for me personally, "a cancelled 2020 edition" doesn't hit the ear right for me compared to "the cancelled 2020 edition", potentially because, in my mind, adding in the year makes it a more definite concept that just "a/one cancelled event" or something similar which is less defined; I wouldn't recommend removing the year from this in any case, given how recent it is and also for notability reasons. I'm not sure if this is just down to regional dialectal differences but it's how my mind/ear works in any case. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see, I thought you may plan to also already remove big chunks from the chapter here this weekend, while I think the skeleton and overall info here is very good minus those stuff + some slight (like 10% of this chapter) further info, as I removed other parades and sporting events specifications, happy you agreed with that. And happy of course to understand better you put the emphasize on locations at the History article, and if you happen to know or come across reasons why this specific cities and hotels/convention places were chosen, even better to enrich there, as well as giving justification to this parallel chapter as extended over there! About "the"-"a", okay no problem; at first I thought you may didn't notice or realized my reasoning for 1st introduction as you referred to definitive one-occurrence. I thought "a" may sound not proper English with just "weird to the ear" crossing my mind. I would still suggest something like "with the exception of one cancelled edition in 2020", but given your further reasoning and what you feel about intriguing the reader, I understand. So I'll wait for next week to describe the other stuff which I see can be removed from here as well as 2 problematic-untrue sourced "facts" + 1 such more on another chapter. Good luck, and have fun, and swift easy work, on the History article this weekend! :-) אומנות (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Presentation of the votes
In section 5.6.1 (Presentation of the votes) it mentions how "From 2016 onwards, the jury voting sequence is opened by the spokesperson of the host country of the previous year, with the spokesperson of the current year's host country being the one to close it." There is no citation currently for this (it states there is one needed).

Would this be a suitable source? https://eurovisionworld.com/esc/eurovision-2016-voting-order-spokespersons https://eurovisionary.com/voting-order-for-grand-final-2017/

I am unable to find primary sources from Eurovision themselves at this time. - XxLuckyCxX (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Rules section
As requested by some feedback: Grk1011 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence listing the types of rules is too long to understand. I kept thinking I reached the "final" and.
 * For anything you describe as current, like Martin Österdahl's position, consider using as of so they can be monitored to not get stale.
 * In the language section, second paragraph. The order doesn't seem right. I think the no rules prior to 1966, but then talking about 1965 right after is confusing. I think you were trying for an introductory sentence.
 * Try to condense the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the presentation of the votes section.
 * Ties for first place might not need to be in this article and just in the Rules article.
 * Validation and observation also might not need to be in this article and just in the Rules article.

GA criteria
At 88 kB (14390 words) of text, the article is well above the recommended article size (see WP:SIZERULE). I would try to see what can be reduced by spinning of non-essential content and using summary style to reduce the detail in the main article. What immediately stood out to me was #Political controversies and #LGBT visibility sections which could easily be separate articles with 1-2 paragraphs of coverage in this article. I would also consider trimming #Hosting section and #Interval acts and guest appearances, which looks like it would be better as a subheading under a main heading rather than in a top-level section. #Anniversary shows and special events as well as #Spin-offs and related shows does not need subsections with details on each one, just discuss each in 1-2 sentences or at worst use 1 short paragraph for each with bullet points. To reach the recommended length, the prose length would be reduced by around 1/3 to 1/2. (t · c)  buidhe  01:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights and recommendations . I had already put in quite some work on reducing the size of this article and siphoning off certain sections into secondary related articles, however clearly there is still some scope for reduction. I will take a look over the next couple of days to see what can be done to bring this word count down to a more manageable number. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest § Splitting proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest § Splitting proposal. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

LGBT in the controversial section??
Why on earth is the LGBT section in the controversial section??? Apeholder (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the last paragraph in that section. -Vipz (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)