Talk:Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

Worst result
Just saw this on my watchlist due to the protection being added. As there seems to be a bit of an edit war, we should discuss the issue. I agree with (seemingly) everyone else that "11th SF" should be listed in the infobox. This is the standard format for these "country in Eurovision" articles. "Did not qualify" is what I've seen used as a placeholder immediately after a semi-final until the actual semi-final placings are announced shortly after the Contest's final. The current version "Did not qualify: 2018" actually tells the reader that Romania's worst placing was a contest they never competed in. Grk1011 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there and thank you for opening this discussion. A country's "worst result" in the infobox parameters can either be the lowest ranking in a Grand Final, the time(s) a country scored null points and the times it did not qualify. Since Romania has always qualified for the final apart from 2018, this is their worst result; the 22nd position in 1998 does not need to be mentioned anymore, as it took part in the Grand Final. Something like "11th SF" is used when a country did not reach the final more than once, determining which of the non-qualifications was the "worst" according to the place achieved in the semi-final. If you feel like I'm doing any mistakes, I think it would be best to ping some experienced users on this subject. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been working on Eurovision articles for over 10 years now (though much less frequently for the past 5 or so years). I actually helped redesign the Infobox so that it includes the fields it currently does. I agree that 1998 is no longer relevant in the infobox as a worst result, but "did not qualify" (for what?) would be non-standard and as I said above, it's misleading. Grk1011 (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you now and changed it to your suggestion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for improving the page and good luck with your GA review! Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Voting history
there is nothing wrong with having the voting history in the article, but you have to state where the information came from. Who calculated those numbers and what reputable entity published the information? If you look at other Eurovision articles, as they've become more robust and moved up the reliability chain, some of the charts were redone to remove more recent years which do not have a source. I believe the only source out there goes until 2015. There had been a tendency for users to just tabulate the data themselves and update the charts. That is not allowed since it is original research. Grk1011 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments
I've done some copy editing, feel free to revert it. I arranged the lede into a 'overview' paragraph and 'preformance' para, let me know what you think. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest merging Selecția Națională into this article. Typically the Eurovision-centric selection processes are part of these types of articles, only having their own page if they are notable in a way that is unrelated to the contest, like Melodifestivalen for example. Grk1011 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do note that the parent article List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest is an FL, and the Lebanon article dates to a 2008 review by a banned user Eddie891 Talk Work 23:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some more minor changes to the lead, but I think it was greatly put together by you. I also conducted the merging you suggested; all needed information was already here, so I only merged the page. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , please check that the logo's fair use rationale is still valid for this page Eddie891 Talk Work 23:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the logo now since I recalled that logos shouldn't be used by two pages at a time. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , did some more ce, let me know what you think Eddie891 Talk Work 22:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your edits greatly added to the article's grammar and flow. Thank you Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also worked on the tables and made them more sortable. I for example removed some of the notes and put them in written text. Both tables are perfectly sortable now. Thoughts on this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , looks good! Do you mind explaining the "final" "points" "semi" and "points" columns to me (essentially how the Eurovision functions) as a non Eurovision follower so I can better comment on it? From the prose end, I'd say you're pretty good. You might get hit on sources because of the CS1 maint and the fact that many of them are offline, but I'm not really sure how to fix those. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again! As of the 2004 contest, the countries participating at Eurovision are split in two semi-finals. The top 10 from each semi-final go through to the grand final. That's pretty much how Eurovision works... As for the sources, I don't think that's a problem. It's non-controversial information that could be also cited otherwise if really requested. Any other issues? Is the grammar ok now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Hi and great work!
 * The 'note' needs to be cited. Other than that, the prose is good by me.
 * ✅ Great!
 * Maybe make a general source for the table of contestants in the style of The list of Nobel laureates, or otherwise make the source of it more clear.
 * I already have "The following lists Romania's entries for the Eurovision Song Contest along with their result" followed by the source, so I think that is enough. It's not really that clever in my opinion to make a "General references" section with only one ref.
 * For accessibility, check that all tables have scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:DTAB)
 * I don't use scope rows since we have a sortable list and when sorting, scope rows would disappear. I have one scope col in the first table since it's needed. Am I missing your point? Did you mean something else?
 * Ask an experienced contributor other than us whether it should be nommed for FL or GA. There will be minor things, but that is it from me. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi!! I think I need some more explanation on one of your comments... Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , that was just my FLC checklist, I didn't really look for anything too closely. if you're happy with it, I'm happy with it Eddie891 Talk Work 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Table formatting
Currently, the table features redundant symbols and leaves important information, such as Romania's status in 1995. More importantly, the table does not match other country's related pages. This change should be done to keep uniformity, to add information about Romania's participation that have been left out in this current table, and to create a neat table that avoids redundancy.
 * The table is a Featured List candidate, thus its difference in formatting to other similar pages. The symbols are not redundant and are meant to help people with colorblindness identify the respective cells. As for the 1995 participation, Romania did not participate and it's mentioned in "Contest history". Adding this to the table would be useless since we would need a long colspan cell; this is not to be included in tables that can be sorted. The same goes for why "Failed to qualify", for example, isn't rowspanned (when you sort the table, the rowspan disappears and you have to refresh the page). Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Citing the the years where they failed to qualify when the official cite doesn't count it, such as in 1995, is still relevant and pertinent information that should be included on a Wikipedia page that is meant to inform of all the attempts of Romania participating in the Eurovision Song Contest.
 * Again, it's mentioned in "Contest history". Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency with other Eurovision articles
I'm really getting very tired of this sort-of-edit-war that keeps happening. I find it a little frustrating that changes to this article that make this article look cleaner, better, and similar to the rest of the Country in Eurovision articles are consistently reverted, and mostly by 2 specific people. Neither of you own this article, and so deliberately impeding its progress and improvement simply because the article is a featured list doesn't sit right with me. I am aware that there are probably requirements for featured lists that prohibit these improvements, but is there truly no workaround? Not to mention, the attitude around this article doesn't seem at all constructive. Just scrolling through the edit history you can see 'changed for obvious reasons' (to who??? it is only obvious to those who have a history with this article) and 'stop or you will be banned'. I have also been told that this page is not incorrect, but it is instead all other Country in Eurovision articles that are incorrect. This to me sounds a little delusional: the only article that looks like this is correct, but 40-something other articles that have reached a consensus on what to look like are incorrect? It just doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't appreciate the hostility surrounding the problem, as well as the air of haughtiness (see "this is not to be included in tables that can be sorted"). I hope a solution can be reached. Granfcanuon (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this article (along with San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest and Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest} are WP:Good articles. They went through a thorough review process that was extremely nitpicky about making sure that they align with Wikipedia's various style guidelines. You can see the review processes for all three of these articles on their respective talk pages. It's honestly a bit annoying to spend hours (days, weeks) bringing articles up to established standards only to have them picked apart by comparisons with articles that have not been edited to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Guidelines do change and some are open to interpretation, but none of the changes that are being reverted are cut and dry "cleaner" and "better" improvements, rather they are stylistic changes based on individual editors' preferences. Honestly, the obsession with combining columns and rows by various IP editors strikes me as quite bizarre. Why is that so important to people? I'm not sure. However, this is not the appropriate talk page to have a discussion about formatting on dozens of articles. I would suggest starting a conversation on the WikiProject's talk page so that all editors can get involved and explain their viewpoints. Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Table edits
I don't really understand why you reverted those edits? It's like that on every other ESC page and I see it as an improvement. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This time I am also a bit confused. When this became a Featured List, the table was similar to what the IP had done without the colors on the years, as seen here. Grk1011 (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's like that on every other [...] page" is rarely a valid argument. We don't have merged rows on sortable lists. Never. Because if you sort the list, you never get the merged rows back, and you have to refresh the page to get the merged rows back, which is truly a pain in the ass. (Hope I'm allowed to say the latter word). Also, regarding the colors: it doesn't make any sense having the year left uncolored (?) For example, let's take the green color, which signifies that an entry was selected, but it did not come to competing. This "it did not compete" things applies to the row having "Dida Dragan" in it, to the one having "Nu pleca" in it and etc... but obviously also to the row having the year "1993" in it, because that's the year that song competed in. Again, just that it's like that on every other ESC page is not an argument, and in fact, this'd need to be updated on the other pages. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I thought you only reverted it because it is a featured article, as your edit summary implied. Of course it being consistent doesn't prove anything or such, but it does indicate that it's far more likely that this article is wrong than that all the others are. I'd be happy to fix all the other articles if need be, but it's weird to leave it in an inconsistent way. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "We don't have merged rows on sortable lists. Never." Where'd you get that from? Just look around a bit on the site and you'll see that that's not true. I also can't find anything on the MOS about it. And I don't get your argumentation; "we should not have X because you lose X if you do Y" – so what? This way we don't have X at all. In this table, the grouping helps give an overview, and it makes sense semantically because all of them together did not have any semi-finals. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's take a more uncommon approach: I would really like to hear some arguments on why exactly the year should not be colored. I would really like to hear if it's not logical enough for the year to be colored as well, alongside all the other rows that describe the entry's artist, song etc. And for the other issue pointed out by you: yes, this is a thing, indeed. It was pointed out during several Featured List nominations of mine, even though it may not be in the manual of style (at least not at first glance; I admittedly could not find anything about it in a rush either). And it does make sense on why people want that in Featured Lists. If you, for example, sort the "Contestants" table in Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest by "Semi", you'll get a bunch of rows reading "No semi-finals", "No semi-finals", "No semi-finals" etc. And tables like these are sorted by something all the time, so you'll just get the many rows regardless. So why not have then unmerged from the beninning? And if you want them gone, you have to refresh the page again, which is odd. Also, no you're not right... you can use the merged rows, indeed, but when the tables are unsortable. Many tables in articles are not correctly formatted, and using the "it is more common, so it wins" principle is something wrong to work with. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think you are right about the years; I think the reason why it's like this on most articles is probably that people simply applied the colour to the whole row, forgetting that the header cell overrides it. Unless somebody objects I'd support this being changed in all the tables. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "And if you want them gone, you have to refresh the page again, which is odd." With the Romania article, if you want them gone, you have to edit the page. Yes, I agree that the Germany table looks bad when you sort it, but that's a problem with MediaWiki, not the table. I do not see why you'd want to make the table look bad by default. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

About colouring the years, Cartoon network freak and I thought it was better to keep the years coloured, and that it should actually be changed on all these pages (although I haven't actually gone and implemented that yet). &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * oh, I had no idea. Wouldn’t it be better to involve other editors in the discussion though? Before disagreement arises halfway through the editing. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 11:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm yeah. I was already thinking about putting someting on WT:ESC, I guess I'll do that today. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Source and visual glitch?
For some reason, the entry overview chart is in the Related involvements section, but the source code has the list of delegations or what not.

Even in the Participation Overview section doesnt look like it has the entry overview, but it does in the source code.

Can someone please fix this? Jusherman (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)