Talk:List of Eurovision Song Contest winners/Archive 1

Chart/map/picture/table
Information on this page needs to be updated. An example is the map of Europe showing how many times each country has won. Sweden's number has to be increased by one in that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.247.146.29 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This happened to me before, it showed 4 wins, however it may be your browser, it now shows 5 wins for me. Cathairawr (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-write needed
This article needs to be completely re-written. Following my successful re-write of the main Eurovision article, these sub-articles need the same treatment. Does anyone else want to lend a hand, or is up to me? EuroSong talk 15:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

About Euro jokes and Winning artist and song famous around Europe? Not any more.
I am a Eurovision fan. I still follow at least the voting every year. And I don't agree with the bad easy jokes about Eurovision that have been running for many years. I particularly disagree when somebody labels songs are bad. What's bad or good in art? I rather believe and respect what many people like because it makes many people happy. Bad? Good? How do you measure that? You can however measure that 300 to 600 million people have been made happy by the show one night. That show must then be good if we want to define good with any degree of accuracy.

However this article assertion that "The winning song each year usually becomes popular across Europe and the rest of the World, and the winning artist, sometimes a previously unknown singer or band, become widely known and respected" is simply not true any more. It was actually only true in the late 60s and 70s.

Winning songs rarely reach international charts and their performers are soon forgotten though some gain some limited notoriety in the weeks before and after Eurovision due mainly to something unrelated to their performance (Remember Dana International and last year's hard rock masked Finnish group). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.12.179.173 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * If you sometimes only watch the voting, how can you:
 * call yourself a Eurovision fan
 * judge whether songs are good or bad - if sometimes you don't even watch the songs?


 * It is a song contest - not a voting contest. EuroSong talk 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that a true fan (like me!) should follow also the songs. But some recent winners, such as Helena Paparizou and Lordi have gained some international success-look how many wikipedias they are on, for example.--90.224.50.167 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - how can you call yourself a "Eurovision Fan" when you only watch the voting? A TRUE Eurovision Fan follows the entire contest, from National Selection processes to the Show itself - year after year. (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Comment
Someone commented the "Map showing each country's number of Eurovision wins:" picture, which is not very "encycopedic" 212.200.100.108 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move
Maybe this page should be moved to Eurovision Song Contest Statistics, it's not only about the winners any more.--90.224.50.167 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite follow. To which page do you suggest for it to be moved? --Biblbroks 's talk 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To Eurovision Song Contest Statistics, and maybe have the winners on a seperate page.--90.224.50.167 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Map
I've removed the map until it's fixed. Tzuppy 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly needs fixing?  Chwe ch  18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing how Tzuppy seems partial to editing articles about Bosnia, and in light of the last edit of this article, my guess would be that the issue is the (certainly intentional) attribution of Riva's 1989 victory to Croatia, which did not exist as a country at the time. -- Jao 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had thought that alright, I just don't see how exactly that can be "fixed". Should I highlight all of the Fmr. Yugoslavia, or make a second map? If I'm being honest I think it's best (and I have no particular POV on this, I would rather there was an easier solution) if the map stays as is. I won't put it back in the article until Tzuppy has responded.  Chwe ch  20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm re-adding the map, and still keeping an eye out for a response from Tzuppy.  Chwe ch  21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a mistake on the map: it shows Switzerland has no wins and that Albania has one. Could somebody correct it? Mb731 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done  Chwe ch  11:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a mistake, that the remaining Federal Republic of Germany didn't win once. The GDR doesn't exist any more, not the Federal Republic of Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.241.122 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would advise to mark the territory of ex-Yugoslavia as 1, and Serbia as 2. Zoli79 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In the map itself, it shows the colours for corresponding wins one way; but the colour code table under it shows in shades of Green. Can these please be brought into line with each other, so that they show identical info. (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Surely Germany should be shown as having a win (I know it was West Germany) --Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 09:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no it was the Federal Republic of Germany, which is also the country that exists today (just with more territory)
 * and it also was the ARD tv-station like today too!!!
 * a country West Germany NEVER existed!!!!!!!!78.43.149.150 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The above about Germany is true, except that Germany now has won two time and should change colour. Who can do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackrauss (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Table of Winners
This could probably go under a very general discussion of Wikipedia table formatting in general, though I am a bit inexperienced on the ways of Wikiland, so feel free to plunder my idea and share it in a larger, appropriate forum--if you agree with it, of course. :-D

I feel that tables that feature country columns would be far more useful if there were no flags beside those countries' names. That's because the flags make it impossible for the average person to copy the data, drop it into a spreadsheet, and then easily sort it. For example, say I want to know how many times Germany won Eurovision? Seems I should be able to drop that baby into Excel and sort it. I suppose I could use a cell count function to tabulate the number of Germany wins, but the ability to manipulate data easily is definitely impeded by the addition of country flags in those cells, which look more pretty than useful to me.

Also, if a country changes its flag (e.g., Romania in 1989 vs. Romania in 1990), would one display the flag flown during the relevant time addressed in the table, or the current flag? Knowing how wonderfully detail-oriented the Wiki community is, I imagine I am not the first to raise the point, but I put it out there again for consideration.

In conclusion: flags are pretty but not practical in tables. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpigeon (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, a more easily sortable table would allow for the removal of other tables in the article that address some of these issues that basically duplicate the data but rearrange it. Cheers--kingpigeon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpigeon (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean - this came up during the FLC. Back then I really didn't want to break up the spanned columns (such as 1969) because I felt it would give the appearance that there were four contests that year. If I did that, the table could be sorted by country (and also by margin of victory, which was one of the things people mentioned most at FLC). I might do it actually, it doesn't seem such a bad idea now. Not so sure about removing the table showing how many times each country has won; it would be easier to read from its own section rather than sorting the main table and counting. And your point about flags is very true (they're endemic in some Eurovision articles), but I don't think they would be a problem if the table was sortable (I think that's what you meant).  Chwe ch  15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I've had a go with that. Better?  Chwe ch  15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding Oslo as the city to host Eurovision 2010. No decision has been made yet on where the contest is going held. Miceagol 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia is missing from the Table of Winners by Country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.168.52 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Runners-Up
Most runner-up spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.106.59 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to state that UK has received the most runner-up spots. Why not further elaboration stating who has come 3rd the most, and 4th, and 5th etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.106.59 (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "Runner-up" means 2nd Place in a contest. The article is purely stipulating the fact that the United Kingdom has come 2nd more times in Eurovision history than any other country. (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC))
 * The IP wasn't questioning the meaning or factual accuracy of the statement, though—just its relevance. I, for one, think the fact might be worth mentioning. I'm not sure I see the point of having second-placed entries (but not third) listed in the table though. The section is named "Winners", so shouldn't it only list winners? I can see the point of including runners-up if the competition is in a single-elimination format, or including 2nd and 3rd places if medals are given out, but as far as I know neither applies here. — JAO • T • C 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1969 and rowspan
I reverted the recent merging of the 1969 rows because it screws up Javascript table sorting (see also the Table of Winners section above). I agree though that having four different rows for the 1969 competition is less than optimal, but as things are now we might have to do that or lose the sorting feature. I know there's a technical solution to rowspan table sorting (discussed last summer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics) which works nicely but for some reason hasn't been implemented. Perhaps that's the way to go? — JAO • T • C 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was not last summer at all, it was in January; see this. — JAO • T • C 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. It looks great - another niggling problem solved!  Chwe ch  16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I was unclear. The problem is not that the solution hadn't been added to this article, the problem is that it hasn't been implemented as a Wikipedia default. While your change makes the table nicely sortable for you and me (as long as we are logged in), the outcome for everybody else (IP users, and users without  in their monobook.js files) is a correctly rowspanned but completely unsortable table. I'll notify Tcncv about this discussion for a status update on the feature. — JAO • T • C 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I prototyped some changes to the sorting code a few months ago to support tables with rowspan and colspan cells. At the time there was did not seem to be a high degree of interest, so I have not pursued the change since then.  If there is an active interest, I can get thinks moving again.  -- Tcncv (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the table sort enhancements have not been released for general use (although you are welcome and encouraged to experiment). At present, the changes you have made to the table have effectively turned off table sorting for the general user.  When the new capabilities are implemented, it is likely the script look for class "sortable" rather than "tsx_sortable". -- Tcncv (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting the wheels moving. See en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).  -- Tcncv (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany-winners
Why was Germany inserted into the winners before all the acts had even finished playing? Watching the voting it would appear as though Germany is going to win. More than a coincidence? Laconia (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed the same thing and I realy wonder how this is possible. I place my comment now, as I wanted to see who won first and it is Germany indeed that has won. Spyler (talk) 0:35, 30 May 2010 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.179.173 (talk)


 * Wow, you uncovered the Wikivisionconspiracy! Kudos. It was pretty clear in the last quarter that Germany couldnt be beaten anymre. Math you know. By the way what country is West Germany supposed to be? There never was a country with that name represented in the UN. It is and was back then The Federal Republic of Germany.--85.180.3.118 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While that is a valid observation, I'm not sure it's relevant or should be used as a guideline for editing this article. This is not an article on politics, and given that two states existed in the 1980s that used the name Germany, it is rather likely that simply listing "Germany" as the 1982 winner will result in unnecessary confusion between the two. If the German Democratic Republic had competed in the ESC, should we list that as Germany as well? I'm not convinced that the name Germany unambiguously implies the Federal Republic of Germany given the time-frame under discussion.
 * My point is essentially that we should use the term West Germany, or an equivalent term that is distinct from East Germany, when referring to the pre-unification BRD. As an aside, there are examples of other countries being represented in the UN under what are not their common names. South Korea and North Korea immediately come to mind. — Nakkisormi (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I watched wiki at the moment Armenia was singing so I doubt it should have been clear then already. It was called the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) but it was the western part of the former Germany and is often referred to as such.Spyler (talk) 0:47, 30 May 2010 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfspyler (talk • contribs)


 * if it was called this it is incorrect. It is and was the Federal Republic of Germany there is no difference.--85.180.9.42 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say is that the country was still German, meaning if you insist that Western Germany should not be used to refer to the country then you might as well use the German name, Bundesrepublik Deutschland or BRD (vs DDR) which is probably the most correct one. I know it could open the general discussion of whether names should be translated at all and of course when a name is so widely used who are we to say it's not correct. Jfspyler (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * there was alot of trouble last night with people inserting countries into the winners table, which is why in the end the article was semi-protected. If I saw that people had inserted winners, which Germany and Spain were repeatedly added to the row as winners, I would delete them, Once Eurovision had announced that Germany was the winner, Germany was added to the row and left in there. Tomdresser27 (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing is certain, the map and the table should agree and they do not. Since as mentioned below the official ESC website has Germany as won twice the map should be purple and the table should state two. If no one disagrees I will change the map. Sgv 6618 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the Federal Republic of Germany has won it twice! 12:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.96.95 (talk)