Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1994

Hosting costs?
Was this the point where RTE started freaking out about Ireland constantly winning? Timrollpickering 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i removed the map because This map is fake!! Turkish part of balkan peninsula is green but must be yellow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.94.219 (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, fixed it. The next time, please change the pic instead of just deleting it. Thanks :-) Peter S. 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cost?
You say that this year cost half the amount of the previous year. Are you sure this is accurate? I seem to remember this one being the really expensive one that Ireland did. Apparently it took half the entire year's programming budget. I won't change anything because I'm not certain and possibly I've got the wrong year.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Italy question
Is a reason why Italy may have skipped this event known? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally it's believed that RAI simply had no further interest in participating, mainly down to apathy among the Italian population. Bar their hosting in 1991 RAI generally put the broadcast of contests on secondary channels and several hours after the live broadcast, generally ending in the middle of the night. However there is not a lot of reliable sources by which to back this up, and it would be considered original research to assert this without sourcing. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus relegation
Please refrain from reverting this paragraph further. The fact is that Cyprus was relegated from the 1994 contest, but was only allowed to participate because Italy decided not to. To not include Cyprus in this paragraph would be the misleading thing because of the established facts in this case. It's very well established later on in the paragraph that the Italy-Cyprus switch occurred, and it's also not something that is included in the lead because Cyprus did participate, but logically it's right to include the fact that Cyprus was originally relegated from a chronological perspective. We take the same approach to other years where a country was relegated but subsequently participated after a country declined to enter (see and  as prime examples where Bosnia and Herzegovina and Portugal were allowed to participate after Israel, and Latvia and Hungary, respectively, declined to enter). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you firstly drop the authoritive tone in your posts and edits. Edits to this article don’t need your personal approval. Mentioning Cyprus in a sentence that states that they were unable to enter is a very much misleading and very confusing given the aforementioned similar lead sentence that doesn’t name them. Therefore it is much better to deal with the Cyprus situation in its entirety in its own paragraph, where you can explain that Cyrpus initially were not allowed to enter but added later following a withdrawal, instead of in two disconnected segments of that section of the article. Why is it so difficult for you to open yourself to constructive collaberation to improve that part of the article. Tvx1 14:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi saw this back and forth on my watchlist. This is a WP:GA, so it has already been through a detailed review of sources and accuracy. As Sims2aholic8 was the editor who brought it through that process, they're a bit more knowledgeable of the specific sources used and the intricacies of the subject matter than the average editor. Honestly, I see your edits as rather authoritative instead, as you've come here out of the blue and demanded a change and won't take no for an answer. Typically if there is a disagreement, the article remains as is and a consensus is formed before the change (if any) is made. I don't think you've made a convincing case, so I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about your version as opposed to the one that had already been reviewed and accepted by many. Of course there is always a possibility that improvements can be made, but I'm not seeing any evidence of collaboration on your part. Grk1011 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If my edits and comments here have been misconstrued as implying a perceived ownership of this article then I apologise. As Grk1011 mentioned I was the editor to bring this article to GA, and I therefore put a lot of time and energy into this and put it through a process of review. As I said, this doesn't mean I "own" the article, just that I have gained a lot of information and context from putting the article through the GA process, and your issue did not come up during this review. However what I do take issue with is your framing of "constructive collaberation [sic] " around your edits, which feel to me in no way constructive, since all you are doing is removing Cyprus from a list of relegated countries (when they were originally) while making no corresponding alterations to the rest of the paragraph to address this loss of information. In fact, keeping your edits would cause confusion for the reader as it would lead to narrative disjointment. Right now the single paragraph covering the competing countries has a narrative involving countries relegated, then new countries, then any changes to the line-up after the "confirmed" list of countries was developed. Taking Cyprus out of the seven relegated countries would be in my opinion confusing to the reader, as there would not be the context then around why Cyprus was readmitted after Italy dropped out. This is the reason why your edits were reverted, not because of any sense of "ownership" but because I and other editors felt there would be a drop in context by permitting them to remain, and instead of working with us once it became apparent to me that dialogue and constructive collaboration were required, you continue to engage in edit warring and then attack me when I made what I felt to be quite well-reasoned arguments to retain the original wording. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)