Talk:Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest

Title of this article
Cannot be Jugovizija because it was not used throught the history of the participation of the SFRY (FPRY) in the ESC. The appropriate name would be Yugoslavian Eurovision Song Contest. -- Imbris (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the timeline of the name under which the contest was held in this very article. -- Imbris (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should be titled the most recent name of the contest and mention past names in the opening. You cannot make up a name like "Yugoslavian Eurovision Song Contest" cause it was never named that, see Eurovision: Your Country Needs You. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This might be valid for active broadcasters/countries but for the inactive the most common name (which was used more) should be used. Your logic is invalid when speaking about the contest never been named Yugoslavian Eurovision Song Contest. How would you translate JUGOSLAVENSKI IZBOR PJESME EUROVIZIJE. Directly as Yugoslavian Contest of the Song of Eurovision or in the spirit of the English language. Stop your patronising over the Jugovizija issue because this was just a suffix to Jugoslavenski izbor pjesme Eurovizije, nothing more. -- Imbris (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Page name
Note: This discussion moved from User talk:Imbris. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the title should be Jugovizija as that was its most recent name. You cannot decide which name would be the most common or whatever so Jugovizija makes the most sense. Instead of starting an edit war, I'll tell you my plan. We move to Jugovizija and have it start with:

The Yugoslavian national final, most recently titled Jugovizija, was produced and broadcast by Yugoslavian Radio Television, and used to select the song and artist to represent Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Over the years, the selection process had many different names including Opatija, Song for Eurovision, and Opatijo Bajna.

There is no discussion about the name of the article which must remain Jugovizija as it is a wiki policy to use either the most recent or most widely known (unprovable). See Eurovision: Your Country Needs You where the article is named the most recent name and simply lists the former names. The article as a whole is about the selection process, not only the name. Using only Jugovizija does not imply that all years used that name as described in the proposed lead of the article. I invite you to reword the lead as you see fit in the hopes of developing a compromise. Please talk about it HERE rather than on the page's or my talk. Also keep it short and try not to lecture me on the contest :) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In such historical issues the most recent name should not apply. You cannot justify the most recent name because it is no longer recent - it is history.


 * The most common name was Yugoslavian Contest for the Eurovision Song Contest, which name has, throught history, had a certain addition (a suffix) which is explained in the article.


 * The syntax most recently titled doesn't apply but as you have pointed out the most common name could be considered as a good way to resolve our differences. I do not agree that the most common (or most widely known) name could not be proven.


 * The Yugoslavian Contest for the ESC has always been called just simply the Yugoslavian Contest for the ESC with certain additions, as I have previously pointed out.


 * The wiki policy you have mentioned do not exist in the form of obligatory usage of the most recent name in each and every article's title. It could be fine for the British Contest because the British Contest is the show that is going on and will go on in the future. Then it is reasonable to use the most recent name, under which most of the users of this encyclopaedia would try to find it (typing the search words).


 * Using Jugovizija is not a good way to go because it was the name of the simmilar Contest held in the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro when it was called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (even it the name should be more correctly translated as the United Republic of Yugoslavia). If the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia tryed to enter the ESC in 1993 (and latter contests) their contest would be called Jugovizija.


 * The name of the article Eurovision: Your Country Needs You could not be considered a viable policy and a standard for all of the local contests. Most certainly not for the historical contests which deserve a more conscious deliberation.


 * Please stop using upper capitals when you insist on something being done in the fashion you want it to be done.


 * Imbris (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I feel like you never see the reply here so sorry. I think the name of the contest in its original language would suit best because the present name of the article is sort of awkward. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In Yugoslavia there were at least 4 major official languages. Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Slovene, Macedonian. Neither of those 4 was considered above all others. The title of the article is not awkward because it is the correct title. Yugoslavian Contest for the Eurosong would be a nice supstitution. -- Imbris (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But Eurosong is not the name of the contest, its just a regional name. I have no idea what to name the page so that it wouldn't be awkwardly long and make sense. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Yugoslavian Contest for the Eurovision or the Yugoslavian Contest for the Eurosong is the direct translation of the main name for the contest in frm Yugoslavia. If shortness is the issue then we might use the adjective Yugoslav instead of Yugoslavian to "save" a few spaces. The regional way is the way to go because it was the way it was locally used. -- Imbris (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Yugoslavian final for the Eurovision Song Contest"? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems ok, but how about "Yugoslavian choice for the Eurovision Song Contest" or "Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest"? -- Imbris (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say selection over choice. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's neutral enough to agree upon, so yes. -- Imbris (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the page is already made its good, but usually we dont have pages for the selections if they changed so much over time. We were under the impression that it was one contest that always chose the participant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a singular contest which had certain additions (suffixes) to its name. -- Imbris (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I moved the page to "Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1992
I think that Jugovizija 1992 winner (Extra Nena) should also be added to the list, as she representet YUGOSLAVIA at the 1992 Eurovision Song Contest. This was FR Yugoslavia, of course, not SFR Yugoslavia, but at the moment of the Yugoslavian selection (28 March 1992), SFR Yugoslavia still existed and was internationaly recognized. The representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina also took part in Jugovizija 1992, so this entry can not be considered as Serbia and Montenegro, but of Yugoslavia. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it a different broadcaster that held that selection process though? This article is about the process used by SFR Yugoslavia. The naming of the article kinda failed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was the same broadcaster: Yugoslavian Radio Television (JRT). JRT was an association consisting of the subnational radio and tv centers based in the each of the constituent countries of the Yugoslav federation. At the time of Jugovizija 1992, only the televisions of Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina remained in JRT, but it was still the same broadcaster. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I would say add. The fact that a only a few areas of the former country does not change the fact that the entrant was chosen. Same as before, I would suggest the page be moved to the title that was the name of the selection process. Since it had several different names, the last used should be the title. It would also be less confusing and be consistent with the naming of the UK's Eurovision: Your Country Needs You. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it was not the same, the broadcast was made by TV Beograd and not as JRT (as it was before). Also there is no data that Bosnia and Herzegovina voted for the entrant. The last title should not be used but the most used one and that was the current title. I would suggest Grk1011 to stop helping in this way of falsely quoting WP. The most used name is always the title of the article. And to Vanjagenije: by what standard it was the same broadcaster, it lost frequencies and member stations. To Grk1011 again, stop misleading the issue, UK still exists and its competition also. If either should stop to exist the most prominent name would be used, the most used and the most sourced. It would not be the last name. Simmilary when authors write under pseudonames we continue to list them under pseudonames and not under their real name, if they haven't used their real name. -- Imbris (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The name should be the most used name, and that is current name, so I say the name is OK. In March 1992, when the selection took place, SFR Yugoslavia still existed and was internationally recognized, member of UN. It was consisted of only Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it was still SFRY. The singers from Bosnia did take part in the Jugovizija 1992, as You can see, and the winner was chosen by jury (see: ), so Bosnia and Herzegovina could not vote for the entrants, as You said. The broadcaster of this selection was JRT as always (see oppening and You'll see JRT logo at the beggining). JRT was not a TV station, but an association of TVs of the Yugoslav republics, so Jugovizija was actually broadcasted by RTB in Serbia, RTV Titograd in Montenegro, and RTV Sarajevo in Bosnia. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdented) To Vanjagenije: If we are to use the data you belive to be true, we should also use the data that Extra Nena represented the FR Yugoslavia which was not recognized successor to SFRY (even if the Constitution of that FRY was passed in the Assembly of diminishing SFRY). So why is Extra Nena in the article Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest? If you want to solve that puzzle, I am all for it. Also if you want to convince everyone that SFRY still existed you should look at the documents to see the so called Badinter Commission's conclusions that Yugoslavia is no longer a state because the Constitution of SFRY was steped on by Milosevic and because all member republics decided to declare independence. If you have looked at that youtube source why not share with us who were the jury members?! -- Imbris (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Extra Nena is listed on Yugoslavia because she was the last Yugoslavian entry in the contest and we've discussed this before. Whether or not you believe its right not or what the constitution said cannot change the fact that that is how it is seen in the eyes of Eurovision and how it must stand in an article about Eurovision. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the article on Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest, and in 1992 there was an Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest which is not included in the article. That is my piont. Maybe that was not the same Yugoslavia, I agree, but that was still Yugoslavian selection, and the winner representet Yugoslavia at the 1992 Eurovision Song Contest. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To Grk1011: Extra Nena is listed because of shaggy sources (BBC among those) and because those sources were used in original research. Then you and 5 of your amigos pushed and asserted your view. User:Zvonko supported a merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest, User:Dzole was in favour of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest + expressed serious doubts of the POV Grk1011/Stephen and Sims2aholic8 (Michael) asserted (Greekboy also participated in this).
 * To Vanjagenije: Now you are not so in touch with your principles. A minute ago you spoke about it was still SFRY and now speak against sources. I do not know why anybody from former Yugoslavia should favour biased editors view's and not use common sense. I am very disappointed with your POV. -- Imbris (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is no POV involved from overzealous editors. The point of view of the contest is the only and will be the only view we can take. Like I said before, the history and political situation of Yugoslavia had nothing to do with the song contest. If the EBU decided to accept the 1992 entry as from the same Yugoslavia as before, you cannot argue that they didn't have the right to because it is their contest and they can do whatever they want with it whether you agree with it or not. The only "shaggy" sources around here are the conclusions you draw from unrelated places like the constitution. Unless you produce a valid source related to the Eurovision Song Contest, that specifically proves your point, you are wrong and need to accept that. If you do find a source, however, I will be happily to let you alter the article to reflect the view point. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax, could not you see that Vanjagenije is not interested in presenting information but hiding under the skirt of mighty EBU as well. You made an error of judgement when insisting that Extra Nena would be put in the same article as others singers that represented SFRY. Even EBU cannot change the fact that Extra Nena appeared under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (a self-proclaimed successor of the SFRY). They did accept them but accepted them for what they are a self-proclaimed area, soon under United Nations sanctions, etc. You are the one who should have produced sources for your constant claims that a preformer who represented an internationally un-recognized, self-proclaimed successor (of the entire SFRY's rights, assets, etc.) called only by name Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the article about the entire Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. You can prolong the current POV and biased data but it will be a policy of short breath, because the sittuation will not stand simply because you gathered up 5 of your followers to put false information in the article simply because of the simmilarity in names. -- Imbris (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Firts of All, who sais that this article is only about SFR Yugoslavia? Where is that written? Second, You can take a look on the official page of the contest, and You'll see that EBU treats the 1992 entry the same way as those from 1961-1991: simply as Yugoslavia. This is in the section "History by country", and when You click "Yugoslavia", You get all entries from 1961 to 1992. You can also click "Serbia and Montenegro", , and You'll get only entries from 2004-2006. I think this is the reason to put 1992 selection into this article. What source can be more appropriate than EBU itself? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see that EBU considers all the data on the web-site as not official.
 * All terms shall be governed by, and interpreted in accordance with, Swiss law. The courts of the Canton of Geneva, Switzerland shall have exclusive jurisdiction. So EBU is nothing more that a subject of Swiss law.
 * The EBU tries to ensure that the Website is as up to date as possible, but the EBU cannot give a guarantee of the accuracy and currency of information provided on it. So the data provided by the web-site in question has no official standing of EBU.
 * Yugoslavia is represented as country No. 7 and under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Grk1011 wrote to the webmaster to replace the title Participants list of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with Participants list of Yugoslavia, thus commited serious medling and possible orriginal research.
 * Now you are abandoning common sense and reliable sources to quote false information from otherwise reliable source. Even UN has a disclaimer about the information posted on the Internet. Also I would like to mention the fact that you have not supplied information about the jury members of "Jugovizija '92".
 * Why are you insisting on inserting false information and why do you continue to claim that the web-site in question is EBU official position. EBU website is: www.ebu.ch and not www.eurovision.tv (international website of the Eurovision Song Contest, produced and maintained by the Eurovision TV Interactive Unit of the European Broadcasting Union). If EBU is anything like the EU then there is no common policy on such issues, but each member has certain rights.
 * Extra Nena represented FR Yugoslavia (consisting of the Republic of Serbia and the Socialist Republic of Montenegro (the Republic of Montenegro proclaimed by the Constitution in 1993) it competed for FR Yugoslavia under the Flag of FR Yugoslavia.
 * Imbris (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. And, why can't she be in this article? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * She can be in the article about Serbia and Montenegro or in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Imbris (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Languages
Yugoslavia had three languages: Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian. Yugoslavia didn't have official languages on the federal level, but each republic had it's official language (same way as in the USA). Serbo-Croatian was official language in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Macedonian was official language of Macedonia, and Slovenian of Slovenia. So, only these languages are relevant for this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is only a clear portail of how deep is your POV. It is well known that there were much much more languages in Yugoslavia, Albanian for instance. The Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was issued in four languages. Croato-Serbian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovene. The fact that you are insisting on three names shows many things, most notably the blockade of media, school books, etc. in Serbia, as well as clear disrespect for the language policy of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A language dispute does not make the entire page "factually incorrect" or "POV". Unless there is a source pertaining to the song in question, not the constitution, leave the language out. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What? You say that the Official Gazette was published in these four languages, and than You say that I discriminate other languages? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1992 selection
This article is called "Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest", and to most people the term "Yugoslavian" includes SFRY as well as FRY, and any country that chooses to call itself "Yugoslavia", whether it is internationally recognized as the SFRY's heir or not. The fact is that any user looking for the way the 1992 entry was chosen will look in this article, not in "Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC". Anyone looking for the 1992 selection will search for "Jugovizija 1992" or the "Yugoslav selection of 1992", not for the "Serbia and Montenegro selection of 1992" - especially because Bosnia participated in 1992, because the 1992 entity wasn't called "Serbia and Montenegro" either officially or informally and because the 1992 selection was called "Jugovizija". And "Jugovizija" redirects to this article.

This reminds me of the Macedonia naming hysteria. I will refrain from making more general comments, despite the temptation, because I suspect it would only increase the hysteria even more.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. A political entity called 'Yugoslavia' participated in the 1992 contest, and according to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest the selection involved Bosnian artists too. Removing the 1992 selection this from this article on the grounds that the meaning of 'Yugoslavia' was changing in 1992 isn't a good solution - we should explain these things to the reader, not brush them under the carpet. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you see the tag placed above the article that you quote as a reliable source, which is btw. not in line with the wikipolicy on not quoting one article to another. -- Imbris (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There is no reason to have a separate article for the selection for Eurovision for Yugoslavia. This should be merged to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, and the treatment of the issue of the various political entities at that page should be adopted for the section on the selection process. The dispute is easily resolved by explaining what 'Yugoslavia' meant for each year. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the local contest, and not the main event (Eurovision). Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest was the main part of the local contest name, and is as such most neutral. Like Eurovision: Your Country Needs You is a local contest and the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest is the article dedicated to UK's appearances in the ESC. I contest the merge. -- Imbris (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Also Fences and windows should look at the precedens Template:National Eurovision Selections. Hope this helps. -- Imbris (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (2) The dispute should not be solved in the way that misleads the reader. This article is dedicated to the local contest in SFRY, not FRY. -- Imbris (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per Fences and Windows's reasoning. This is essentially a WP:POVFORK, a way at getting around the inclusion of the 1992 entry on the main Yugoslavia in ESC page. In response to Imbris's concerns, redidicate it to both then, it was the "same" country at Eurovision. Also the national selection pages for each country are for those notable on their own. Selections with a year to year identity, not grouped information on the selection each year. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This discussion is an unofficial discussion, it doesn't comply with WP:RM. And it is not a fork because the article lists all of the local selections, even those that did not appear in the ESC. The article to which Fences and windows aims to place the information is not dedicated to all local selections but only those which appeared in the ESC. Grk1011/Stephen should know that we all know from where his POV comes, even if he doesn't live in Greece, he should know that User:Dzole read right through his POV. -- Imbris (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't comply with RM since its not a move, it's a merge. The proper merge templates were placed and an entry added to the controversial mergers list already. What is the problem? Claiming I have a bias is irrelevant, because ultimately this will not be you against me, it will be the consensus of the wiki community. What does me being Greek have to do with anything? I'm also French, Irish, English and Mi'kmaq, how is my ethnicity relevant? Also this isn't about the "local contest" because there was no yearly identity. There was no common name or process used year after year. You just grouped a bunch of selections over the years together in an attempt to justify your actions. Let's get some outside opinions, no need to lecture me anymore. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. All the content in this article is duplicated there, and I see no need for this extra article. I think issues about POV and bias are beside the point: this is essentially a duplicate article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: I agree with Fences and windows and Grk1011. As we have all seen before there is definitely too much bias placed in this argument, and in my opinion there seems to be no real reason to constitute a separate article for a selection process with no real consistency. It seems to me that what you call the "national selection process" page is a group of contests with no real consistency, with about a dozen different names over the country's 30 year participation. This does not provide enough consistency in my opinion to warrent its own article. Besides this I see no real point as to why you should include those five songs that won a contest with no real relevance to Eurovision at all. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)