Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 23

Proposed replacement for redirected "[Country] in the Eurovision Dance Contest articles"
Hi, I am working on an article to replace the previously redirected pages for each individual country in the Eurovision Dance Contest, combining the information from each previous article into just one article, removing the duplication that appeared previously, and matching the format now used for other Eurovision competitions. This is where I am up to at present, I need to find some more sources, as well as further information regarding some of the national finals. Let me know what you think of the article so far, if there is anything you would add or remove, ahead of me submitting it for consideration. A similar format could potentially be used for the '[Country] in Eurovision Choir' articles in future, as it appears that contest may similarly end after two editions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Participation_in_the_Eurovision_Dance_Contest Wp27 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice work! You've been working on that for a long time. I'll see if I can contribute something as well. One thing that comes to mind is moving some information from over to there. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Referring to countries as "they"
Amid an edit war on the and  JESC pages, a question came up that I find interesting: can you refer to countries as "they", or should "it" be used? "They" is currently far more common on Eurovision articles, but "it" seems more grammatically correct to me. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll add a note since it was me who uniformed those to pages to ‘it’: I did that to avoid (sequences of) sentences shifting from a singular to a plural, which sounded very inelegant to me (I also replaced ‘they’ when it referred to the broadcaster); I am not against the use of the plural pronoun as long as it is consistent within its paragraph. Whether ‘they’ is “correct” or not, it is in my opinion merely a case of prescriptivism vs descriptivism, so I guess a discussion in this sense will hardly reach a general consensus and I suggest just going for consistency case by case. As long as ‘they’ is actually used in such instances in general English, of course. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 23:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm not paying too close attention, I always use "it". I believe it is an American English vs British English difference (and I'm from the US...). Then again, I also have seen Europe-based editors using "it" as well. This site shows what I've seen: . Would love a British English speaker to shed some light on this! Grk1011 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As a speaker of British/Irish English I'm not sure there a big difference either and I believe both could be used. Thinking back on articles I've edited or expanded I feel I've probably used both at different times, and yes probably the plural form is a bit more European than the singular in these cases. I wouldn't advocate a consensus here since I think it comes down to personal preference, and personally I believe as long as pronouns and verb forms are kept consistent in an article, by using either the singular "it" or the plural "they" exclusively throughout, then I don't see a problem necessarily. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Score tables in song-related articles
I’ll open this discussion following a disagreement I had with at Tornerò (Mihai Trăistariu song). I was copyediting the article as I had done (and still I am doing) with articles about other entries, and I removed the detailed table with the points awarded at the contest – my rationale is that it is redundant as long as there is a “[COUNTRY] in the Eurovision Song Contest [YEAR]” article (such as Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006), and it defeats the point of having two separate articles. Grk1011 objected to this, deeming the points received at the ESC information relevant to the song. What is your view on this? 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 20:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not just myself, but also, the major contributor to that article. As was pointed out, points awarded by do not really have a place, but points received by the song/entry seem relevant, whether that's in prose or a table, I don't know. Grk1011 (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this one; information really does not need to be exclusive to one article and info about the song's success seems relevant to the song itself. On the other side it's quite a large table and I wonder how interesting all this info will be for the reader. Maybe summarising in prose would work? At least the table should not be collapes by default per MOS:DONTHIDE. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The table would also grow a bit if kept so that it aligns more closely with MOS:ACCESS. This would be the new version: Romania_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2006. I added an additional sentence about the points to the article since without the detail there is a lack of appropriate detail. Grk1011 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Creating participation articles before anything is known
Am I the only one who gets annoyed by this? For example look at the recently-created Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022. Notice that there is no information at all about their actual participation, other than that ? The rest of the content is just a short summary of Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Song Contest 2022 – what you have in every such article. Readers coming across this article hoping to find information about Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 will be left finding a whole bunch of nothing. This is not just about that specific article though; there are also a bunch of JESC ones currently in this state (see for example or again ), and it's happened before that these kinds of article had to be deleted later, such as what happened with Armenia in ESC this year. Too soon says that if sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. I think it makes sense to follow that advice. Anyway, that's just my little rant. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree, there's simply no need for these articles at this stage. I think in these cases it's cut-and-dry WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, and removing any classifications from the talk page WikiProject boxes, which will allow us to monitor these articles should they be recreated and take any action where appropriate if it's a reversion without adding any additional details. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. It also takes away the ability to do a WP:DYK. I would suggest blanking these until substantial information about respective selection processes is announced. Grk1011 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Competing entries" table in "Contest by year" article
Looking for input on an idea I had recently while copy-editing many of the "contest by year" articles, to include a new "Competing entries" table, similar to those found in national final pages, outlining all competing entries in a given year in one table. These would also provide a benefit of including more details on songwriters, participating broadcasters, and conductors up to 1998, in a table format. I have drafted up what these tables might look like, one for entries at the 2021 contest, and another for 1998 to include the conductors. I would appreciate any feedback on these, whether these might be considered viable and a good addition to the contest pages, and happy to have a greater discussion on layout, content, etc. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure – I think that indeed the biggest benefit would be that you'd see the songwriters and conductors (the broadcasters are already in their own section); I think that's certainly relevant information. But there's also MOS:DONTHIDE meaning that we probably shouldn't make them collapsed by default, but otherwise it would take up a lot of space on an already very long article. I think that at least the composers and lyricists should be combined into one "Songwriters" column, since they mostly overlap already anyway. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do actually think that this should at least be added to the lists of Eurovision Song Contest entries. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing, and those are valid points. Removing the "Broadcaster" column and merging "Composer(s)" and "Lyricist(s)" would help to make the table smaller. Of course it does depend on the browser that is being used by the reader, so MOS:DONTHIDE is also a good point I hadn't considered. I do however like the inclusion of broadcasters here, given that some countries have multiple broadcasters that take turns, e.g. Belgium, and also changes in broadcasting structures over time. I've created a modified version of 2021 without broadcasters and merged songwriters (below) for consideration (currently autocollapsed for space reasons on the talk page). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Graph in "List of countries" article


Wondering what everyone's thoughts would be on using Graph:Chart for the Number of Participating Countries graph as a replacement to the outdated png image. I believe that using this template will make it easier to update every year. On the right are the current image and the proposed template replacement. I am also wondering if the cancelled 2020 contest should be included in the graph? If so we could add a note in the description that states "Including the total number of participants that planned to participate in the cancelled 2020 contest". If not we can just skip 2020 in the graph. Please let me know what you all think and if anyone has more ideas/suggestions I'd be really happy to hear them! Aris Odi ❯❯❯  talk  08:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that a graph is a lot better than a PNG! I didn't even know this existed. I'm hesistant about the 2020 contest, since we can't know what would have happend (wouldn't be the first time a country drops out last minute). Also, the participants ection in the infobox does not take 2020 into account either. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That is very true, we will never know if a country would have dropped out of the 2020 contest last minute, so I made a version without 2020. It is also worth noting that this template is very customisable, we could add a legend to it, customise the colours and fonts, etc, whatever could be needed. Aris Odi  ❯❯❯  talk  01:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the graph is a great replacement for the PNG file, though considering the 2020 contest was called off at a pretty late stage (around the song submission deadline), it is almost safe to assume none of the announced participants would have withdrawn, so I would include it. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 12:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reckon this needs to be discussed further, I'm not opposed to adding the planned participants for 2020, however I'm concerned about putting in data based off the assumption that it is almost certain that no country would have withdrawn. Aris Odi  ❯❯❯  talk  15:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, no doubt it needs some discussion. Just meant that it’s not like the edition was cancelled before any major decision regarding it. Nearly everything was basically ready for it (delegations too, I would assume). :) 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 15:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively we could use a different color for the 2020 section of the graph— hoping that is possible to code . 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, seems to be feasible. Visual representation: 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 15:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I support the change to the template version. Grk1011 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I support using the template version. doktorb wordsdeeds 02:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I reckon I will go ahead and add it to the article. I will also add one for the Junior contest since it doesn't already have one. Aris Odi  ❯❯❯  talk  02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision songs tagged for notability
Hi. I noticed that there are a number of Eurovision song articles, 9 to be precise, which have been tagged (often years ago) as possibly failing WP:NMUSIC. These can be found here. While I imagine being a Eurovision entry doesn't automatically confer notability to a song, it does seem likely that most of these songs have received coverage that makes them pass our notability guidelines. Basically I was wondering, since I personally lack the expertise and since this WikiProject seems pretty active, whether any of you would like to take a crack at improving these articles :) Lennart97 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the table in "Country in Competition" articles
There are a lot of inconsistencies between the contestants tables of these articles, and particularly with the featured article Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest. Some issues have been dealt with on talk pages such as here, but others are yet to be resolved. With this RfC I'm hoping that we can decide on one standard format for these tables, and to then actually implement those changes on all tables.

I have dug into the archives of this talk page, and found past discussions about the tables, including a 2012 RfC, a 2013 RfC, a 2013 discussion, a 2014 discussion, several consecutive 2020 discussions, a 2021 discussion, and the above discussion.

In a similar fashion to the previous RfCs, I have split this one up into per-topic sections for this that I think need to be discussed. If there is anything else that you feel should be brought up, go ahead and add another section.

Please note that this covers not only ESC articles but also JESC and other Eurovision-related events (so basically, the category Nations at competitions).

Lastly, wasn't there some system to deliver user talk messages to all WikiProject members? I think that would be useful for this RfC. For now I'll just ping some involved editors:, , , and. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Row colours in the year column
Background colours are often applied to the whole row, but because the year column uses row-scoped table headers, its grey background overrides the row's background. Most articles currently just let this happen, but on a few people agreed that this should be changed, so that the whole row is in that colour. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally find it more pleasing to the eye to see the year column all in the same (gray) color, because it is more immediate when scrolling and looking for a specific year, and after all the colors refer to the entries that are listed to the right, not to the contest editions. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 14:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ivan that the year should be gray. The colors are typically different for each column grouping within a row, so I find it odd to add color to a year just because it's abutting a colored cell. Grk1011 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the year should remain in grey. We already use different colours for the semi-final placings where appropriate, so I don't find it too much of a stretch to also keep the year as a different colour to the row. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Song" vs "Title"
In for example the Netherlands in ESC article the column is called "Song", while in Greece in ESC it is called "Title". My preference goes to "Song", because "Title" could refer to anything (maybe the title of the contestant?). Also the wikilinks in the column link to articles about the songs, not about the song titles. I know this is just a minor thing but it would be good to make it consistent. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am more inclined towards "Title", but overall indifferent. Possibly "Song title"? (That would probably take too much space though). 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 14:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say "Title" here as "Song" seems too vague. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to rename both the artist and song/title columns? "Entrant(s)" instead of artist and "Songs" instead title? These would match the categories for entrants and songs. As an aside JESC 'participants' and its subcats are not following the ESC naming convention of 'entrants'. Grk1011 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Grk1011's proposal makes sense and would help to achieve greater alignment and consistency with tables and categories, so I would support using "Entrant" and "Song" (or possibly "Song title" if there is consensus for that) for these column headers. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Table width
Most articles have  for the contestants table, but not Romania in ESC. Personally I wonder that this is for, because it only means you have to move your eyes more to read the thing. It also causes problems with infoboxes and images on the right side of the screen, for example in Azerbaijan in JESC. That article currently looks really bad on thin screens imo. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a completely arbitrary width and does not aid the reader. In many cases, I would argue that it even creates an accessibility issue.  should be removed from all these tables and the automatic width should take over.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On a personal level I find the tables with  a lot easier to read and a lot cleaner to look at as it creates a semblance of consistency over all of the related articles. I do understand that it can become a problem, however, so I'd support removing it if it's really that necessary. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, on larger tables like Germany in ESC, you are left with a huge blank space on one side of the article, at least on desktop, which just really doesn't look good to me. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I support removing 100% width. The Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest example mentioned above is really overwhelming at 100%. Grk1011 (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree that the 100% width is a little arbitrary and can actually hinder the reader. It really depends on the display width of the user, and for me personally on a monitor that is 1920x1080 it looks very overwhelming. One further point to add would be using breaks in the language column, which I noticed there in the Germany example for 1999 on larger screens with the 100% width doesn't make particular sense to have a break. I would suggest for these cases where there are 3 or 4+ languages for an entry that we allow the table to wrap these as per the reader's browser settings. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References in the language column
San Marino in ESC and Andorra in ESC, both good articles, are as far as I know the only ones that have this. Is this really necessary for this column? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It would probably make more sense to have a separate ref column. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 14:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or maybe leave it out entirely because the sources can be found on the per-paticipation articles as well. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The language refs were required by the GA review. The overall table reference (which goes to the country's page on the ESC website) does not list the languages. Therefore, supplemental references are needed for this information. Grk1011 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that does make sense actually. Should we then also do this for the other tables? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Providing references for these languages will be a criteria for GA review so I think ideally we should be including suitable refs for all languages. One suggested source could be using the country pages from Diggiloo Thrush, however this has not been updated since 2013 so newer sources will be required for 2014 onwards. I believe the official ESC website has started including the languages for more recent contests (2010 or 2011 onwards) but in some cases that isn't totally accurate as it may only reflect the studio versions and not necessarily what was performed on stage; additionally language comments are only included on the individual contestant pages and not the overall country page, so further links would need to be added. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Section heading
Most ESC, EYD and EYM articles currently call it "Contestants", whereas the JESC, Choir and Turkvision articles call it "Participation". I don't have a strong preference, but "Participation" is a bit odd because the entire article is about the participation. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Contestants" or maybe "Entrants" / "Entries" seems more appropriate. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 14:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Or an alternative could be "Participation history", if that is not too confusing after a "History" section. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 14:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would take a page from the Eurovision website book here and call it "Participants", but Contestants or Entries are both good options. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good one. I think that "Participants" is a far better option than "Participation" or "Contestants". &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is much more than a table of participants. It's showing points, placings, song names, etc. The title should reflect that. I'd !vote 'Entry history' while renaming the preceding prose section 'Participation history'. Grk1011 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally associate a section with "History" in the title more with prose than with a list. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "Participation" works better than "Participants" given that, as Grk1011 said, it's much more than just a list of artists who participated. I could also agree to using something like "Entry history" for this section and then reflecting the preceding section as "Participation history". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're going with "Participation" then maybe it should be called "Participation overview"? Because it is kind of a summary of the country's entries, rather than detailing on the history. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think "Participation overview" is a good option and has a good ring to it for me personally. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Worst result
I've found some inconsistency across these articles about whether to include the worst result of the country or not: in Germany's JESC article, it is present despite there only being one participation so far, while on other articles like Albania's ESC article, it is not present. I personally think that if the best result is included, the worst result should be as well, or conversely if it is decided that the worst result should not be included, then the best result should also not be included. I don't mind either way, personally. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There was also a discussion about this last year, and I think the problem back then is that there is not one objective way to determine a country's worst result. But logically speaking if you can determine a best result you should also be able to determine the worst one, so I agree that it is odd to do it this way. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be rather easy to consider the worst result either the lowest placing of the country in the semi-finals (for example, Latvia's worst result would be 2009, where they placed 19th in the semi-final), or if they have never participated in a semi-final/always qualified, the worst result would be the lowest placing of the country in the final (for example, Ukraine's worst result would be 2017, where they placed 24th in the final). I feel like this is a bit obvious, but if it's controversial then removing the best/worst results probably wouldn't change much. To be fair, they don't really add that much to the page in the first place - you can already see the best and worst placements by simply sorting the table. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do actually think that at least the best result is important information for a country's participation. It shows whether a country is very successful like Ireland or that they have struggled to make the top. The worst result is maybe a bit less informative, because bad results can happen to any country (such as again Ireland). &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point but I do disagree. Ireland's table already displays their many wins and successes, so why do we need to repeat the same information elsewhere in the article? Also, good results can happen to any country as well. Granfcanuon (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say the best result is probably more notable for a reader if there is disagreement on what to keep, but it would also make more sense to me to have both. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 16:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This was largely an WP:OR issue. It's very straightforward to show what the best placement was as "simple arithmetic", but for worst placing you have more variables. Is 5th in a semi-final of 10 worse than 8th in a semi-final of 20? (not a real example, but it shows the issue we were having with the determination). Grk1011 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But if you can determine the best result, you should be able to use the exact same set of rules to get the worst result right? Of the two you mentioned, the best result would be 5th, so that automatically means that the worst would be 8th. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When we spoke of this in the past it was more about what last means. Is 20th of 20 entries (last) better or worse than 22nd of 22 entries (also last)? What if they placed 20/20 and 20/22, the same placing with a different number of entries? They still beat the same number of countries in each appearance. Grk1011 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't we have exactly the same problem though when deciding which is the best? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d say it’s worse when an entry is less likely to end up last, i.e. when there are more competing entries. Same for the best. Is there any other way to see it? 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 22:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to say that any "worst result" field in the infobox could be scrapped. It is very subjective, as this discussion has shown, and hard to pin down exactly how to quantify this. One way, which I have seen being used by SVT among others, is ranking the semi-finalists from 27th downwards based on points received, so the two semi-finalists which finished 11th would be ranked 27th and 28th based on which got more points. For example, for 2021 Croatia would be ranked 27th and Denmark 28th as Croatia received 110 points in semi 1 compared to Denmark's 89 points in semi 2. I'm not suggesting we adopt this method however, I've just using it as an example of how difficult it can be to quantify performances when the number of competing countries in a given year changes. Best result is more clear-cut to determine as every country bar one has qualified for the final, whereas almost all countries have failed in the semi-finals at least once. In addition, for some countries like Austria or Czech Republic, given the 28-country semi in 2007, their worst placings will be distorted from others, which is a little bit of a spanner for the "consistency" argument. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion
So before I go ahead and implement it, I thought I'd summarise the result of this RfC: &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The year column remains grey;
 * The "Contestant" and "Title" columns become "Entrant" and "Song";
 * The  gets removed from the tables;
 * The "Contestants"/"Participation" section gets renamed to "Participation overview";
 * The worst result gets removed from the infobox.
 * This seems like an accurate summary of the consensus. I do wish we had more input from project members though. Grk1011 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this appears a good summary of what has been agreed above. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Done! I have now finally implemented this in every single one of these pages (damn, we have a lot of those). I also removed the worst result field from Template:Infobox song contest country and also started a CfD for Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest participants. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Infobox song contest"
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox song contest, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Points for non-qualifiers in "national year" templates
Quick point I wanted to raise and to hopefully gain consensus. I have been tidying up a number of "country by year" articles, and have noticed many of the infoboxes for the non-qualifying acts include points in the semi-final result field. This is going against the documentation for use of the template, which states only the placement should be included for these entries. I don't particularly mind either way on the formatting, but figured it would be best to establish what we should do going forward to achieve consistency, as I have been removing this info for it to subsequently reverted. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that! It must be based on the fact that failed to qualify takes up more space and therefore would make it multiple lines? I'm fine with continuing to do it the way the documentation prescribes unless there is a good reason not to. Grk1011 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's my assumption too. Usually what happens is the points get shifted to a second line, so it does look a bit messy. Potentially a work-around would be to add a line-break before the brackets, which looks somewhat neater as that way the entire placement and points information is then on one line. I don't have a massive preference either way, so I'd be happy to go for no points info or the line break if there is strong consensus for either one. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would actually make sense to have separate parameters for the result and the number of points, actually. Template:Infobox song contest entry has this too. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be one way to go. However I fear then that the infobox might get increasingly large if we added even more rows. With the song infobox there are only a few other items, whereas for the "national year" box, especially for such countries that have 10-15+ shows in their national final (e.g. Slovenia 2012) it could be even more cumbersome. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that's a big issue though; I've seen way larger infoboxes. Template:Infobox song contest is often like twice as large, but I don't find it hard to use. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that is very true upon reflection. I would quite like to still continue to highlight in the national year infoboxes whether a country qualified or not from the semis, and I think that's probably best achieved with a single line for semi-final results. If we were to create separate lines for points and placing, then either adding Qualified or Did not qualify to the placing would make the solo points total a little strange-looking in my opinion, or there would be duplication for both of those fields, which I would rather avoid. Thoughts? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think the Slovenia 2012 article's infobox is done properly. The 'spirit' of selection dates having the option for plural '(s)' was mainly so that you could show both important dates (when the artist/act was determined vs when the song was). It was not envisioned to outline every single date that the candidate pool was whittled down. This would be a slight adjustment to how some of the articles list this (thinking Sweden for example), but now that you've brought it up it may be time to bring these articles back in line. I also still support Sims' one line for the semi-final field instead of creating additional parameters. The infobox is a summary, not a catchall after all. Grk1011 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this; those dates are there so you know when the artist/song was selected, it does not need to detail on the national finals like that. It's too much information that I don't think is useful for most people. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree with this as well. A single date for artist/song or both should be the limit for those boxes. In a case like Sweden as well, where there are separate Melodifestivalen articles which use a different infobox that lists all dates, it's not that big of a change, but overall these boxes could do with a tidy up to remove superfluous information and keep it simple, which is the main point for these anyway. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm yeah. How about putting Did not qualify in the final result field? I just tried that for Amen (Ana Soklič song). &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean that's certainly a possibility. Personally I prefer how the national year infobox is structured as it is now; I'm not really sure what value a separate points row actually adds, plus also then an additional line for final when there wasn't one before. I did a mock-up of Slovenia 2021 in your proposed format; for me there's a lot of white space in the bottom section now, which isn't as evident in the song infobox since it is more narrow, which would be even more noticeable for finalists. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah fair point. I do think that the number of points should be shown though, since it seems to me like it's quite significant information about the participation. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the points in this usage have meaning though. Without knowing what the other participants recieved, you're not really telling the reader anything. Whereas 13th means that 12 countries fared better, 44 points lacks any scale or basis for comparison. Grk1011 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with this too. Points at the final is more significant than at the semis (especially considering the semi points aren't announced during the live show) so I think the current format of points for qualifiers only works best. Happy to also have a discussion on whether we remove points in the semi results in these infoboxes entirely, given Grk1011's point above. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Highlighting the eventual winner
I'm in a bit of an edit war with on Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 and I'd like some opinions since it could affect other articles as well. In many participation articles (but not all), there is a habit of highlighting the winner in the list of contestants/participants as well as in the table showing the outcome of the selection process. In my opinion, that information is out of place. The table is there solely to show which acts took part. To me, it's weird to tell the reader who won while still describing the background and particulars of the selection process. Granfcanuon's reasoning was that it's "for readers who don't necessarily want to go through the entire article", but isn't that the whole point of the lead section. Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm I hadn't actually considered it that way previously. The winner will be included in the infobox at the top of the article, and in the lead section of the article, so I can see your point that it appears a bit out of place to also highlight placings in that table as well when its main purpose is to show which artists and songs took part in a selection process. My thoughts at this stage would be with you on this, and to keep placement shadings out of these tables; other shadings, to indicate disqualification etc., would still have a purpose here I think. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As someone who takes in information far easier visually (colours, shades, so on, instead of prose), the shadings have been rather invaluable to me as a reader, even before I decided to start editing, so there is a personal reason why I would like to keep them. However, from an objective standpoint, if highlighting the winner is unnecessary since it is already talked about in the lead section, why do we highlight anything? On articles about Eurovision years, we say who won (usually in the prose) and we say who qualified (either in prose, or through the coloured map). Why highlight the qualifiers or the winner then? On individual country articles, we usually say each result, or at least each notable result, in the lead section of the article (e.g., Ukraine has won the contest twice: in 2004 with "Wild Dances" by Ruslana, and in 2016 with the song "1944" by Jamala). So why do we shade in the table on the participation overview? Why do we shade anything at all? I'll give you an answer: ease of information. It is so much more comfortable, I'd be willing to bet more comfortable to most people, to digest the information of who won and qualified and so on. Getting rid of the shadings in each country's table and each Eurovision year would be ridiculous, at least to me, and I find it equally ridiculous (and also very arduous were the removal to occur, given the amount of pages that use it) to remove the shadings discussed here. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that highlighting the winner or qualifiers is indicating the results. The point of the contestants table is not to indicate the results, but who competed. All the other tables you mentioned do include the results (which is a good thing anyway because tables should not rely solely on colour to convey information per MOS:DTT). If you really want to be able to easily identify the winner, can't you just scroll down? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree, we're not trying to get rid of shading entirely, but only to apply shading where it makes logical sense. For example, we don't apply shading in the main ESC by year articles for countries in the final which placed second or third, as there is no awards given for these positions, so I'm not sure if having shading for the winner in this table makes sense since it's main purpose is to detail who competed in the selection process. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that I am delaying the inevitable by arguing my point about wanting to keep the shadings, so I will stop arguing since there clearly isn't a point in doing so. You raise valid points, as does Sims2aholic8 and Grk1011. My argument was coming mostly from a place of emotion, as ever since I became a Wikipedia editor the changes to these articles have made it harder for me personally to read them without getting overwhelmed. Really not trying to act like a toddler here, I have genuine difficulty reading some of these articles, especially since the 100% table width was removed (which you'll recall I also felt strongly about as it really did help me navigate the tables). However I also recognise that these articles cannot meet my needs and my needs only, as that is selfish, so I concede. I apologise for causing any upset and will not oppose any further removals of the shading. Granfcanuon (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is really no need to apologise; it seems to me like you read Wikipedia articles quite differently to how I read them, so hearing a different perspective is certainly helpful. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right! Disagreements happen, but I can confidently say we're all thankful for the editors that dedicate their time here! Grk1011 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to concur here too. We can't do everything by ourselves, and yes we might have differing opinions but this is a community project and we wouldn't be here without all the amazing editors out there working to improve the quality of our articles! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

TOP 10: Most watched - Eurovision Song Contest
Hello, WikiProject,

You guys are the experts, can you look over this new article? It looks atypical to me but I don't know the standard format of a Eurovision article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not an article I would have created. I doubt what encyclopaedic value this actually brings in its inclusion on Wikipedia, so my preference would be deletion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is not a standard Eurovision article and I don't think this thing is notable or valueable to anyone. I would have AfD'd it already but it was created by an inexperienced editor who put al lot of work into it, and I don't want to discourage them from editing. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't think it is an appropriate article and don't see it surviving a potential AfD. Without some hand-holding though, I definitely think it would scare off/discourage the new editor. Grk1011 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOP 10: Most watched - Eurovision Song Contest. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Dealer07
I think most active participants of the project have already noticed but has been evading his block for the past few months, most recently to constantly add links to English language to various articles. I've been keeping track and they have already used 26 IP addresses and three accounts (Dealer07, Eurofan00, LefterisA) for this. It's the reason why Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 and Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest are currently semi-protected, but it seems they are also starting to do this with other articles like Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. I don't really know what to do about it; given that their IP address keeps changing the only solution I see is semi-protecting basically all Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Create a case with WP:SPI for the initial account, note the other two accounts, and request a full block for the user's IP ranges (which currently only have topic blocks). Also request CU for a sleeper check. Twinkle can assist you with the case creation.
 * Whenever a new IP comes up, check whether it closely resembles one they had used before; if so, calculcate the IP range from the old and new IPs using ip-range-calc, and report it as well. Again, Twinkle helps you with the reporting part. IceWelder  &#91; ✉ &#93; 09:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there is already a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07 however it does take some time between getting reported and getting blocked, and in the mean time they've already changed IP address. I guess a rangeblock could work but it looks like they're using multiple IP ranges including 5.54.0.0/15, 46.176.96.0/19, 79.166.0.0/15, 176.92.0.0/18 and 195.251.80.0/22. I guess I should ask a CU who probably knows more about this than me. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who handled some involved sock ranges in the past, to assist in blocking the IPs. IceWelder  &#91; ✉ &#93; 11:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just list all IP addresses I found for reference here then. All of them had similar editing behaviour and they all geolocated to the same city. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses

5.54.241.215

5.54.250.57

5.55.192.236

5.55.194.251

46.176.110.182

46.176.112.182

46.176.117.218

46.176.120.142

46.176.125.193

46.176.125.193

79.166.71.118

79.166.76.140

79.166.94.40

79.166.108.193

79.166.124.125

79.166.127.140

79.167.116.109

109.178.147.133

176.92.8.175

176.92.17.36

176.92.33.89

176.92.48.188

176.92.50.215

195.251.81.64

195.251.82.211

195.251.83.58

Template for voting method
Currently every single Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 article contains the same explanation of how the voting method works. This is useful for the reader, but it is difficult to maintain; every time it needs even a small edit, then that's actually nineteen edits, or more if it also affects earlier years. For this reason I sometimes encounter pages where this is still written in future tense, such as. This is I think where putting it in a template would be perfect. So I created a draft at User:Jochem van Hees/Drafts/Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest voting explanation. It currently shows the section for 2024, but you can add a parameter specifying which year it should be. So far I've made it work for 2017–2021. The only downside to this I see is that you'll need to have a bit more technical knowledge to be able to improve it. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's quite a novel idea, and it would certainly cut down on having to change several articles just for a few minor tweaks. I'd support implementing something like this for sure, and yes you're right it would require a bit more technical know-how to really make it fully adaptable, but it's a great start. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. I do think it'll need more than one reference for all that it's describing, however. Grk1011 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll look for some references. The way the template is right now is almost exactly copied from what it already was on the article though. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting song articles
Following on from a discussion on a 2022 contest entry, I would like to reach some consensus on the fate of a lot of very basic, stub-length articles on contest entries which exist out there. I feel there are a lot of song articles for contest entries which fail to meet WP:NSONG notability guidelines, and would be best placed in being blanked and redirected to another article, e.g. that year's contest, the relevant country article, a specific country by year article, or an album (if this exists). I know the current WikiProject objective has been to create an article on every song and artist, however I don't see the value in having hundreds of stub articles out there when the information already exists in higher-quality articles. Eager to hear thoughts on this issue. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi sorry for the late reply, I was a bit busy with, well, you know. I would totally agree that a lot of those articles aren't notable and should be merged. I'm not so sure how to go about this though, given that a bunch of articles do have some relevant info about the songs, and others are complete stubs but the songs did chart which is a criterion of WP:NSONG. I do think though that we should completely update the project page, and remove these objectives that make it look like we have to write articles about everything. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the 'objectives' of the project need to be tweaked a bit to reflect modern practices and guidelines, but I also don't think the original goal was to create stubs for everything and walk away. The problem with the 2022 entries is that they haven't actually met any of the Wikipedia inclusion criteria yet. Typically taking part in the contest has helped at the end of the day, but at this point, none of the songs have competed yet. At some point prior to the contest there tends to be enough information to warrant an article with some substance, but I don't think you can pinpoint a general date when that happens and apply it to them all. I'm less concerned about the 2022 entries because people do actively contribute to improving them since they're relevant. On the other hand, I do have a problem with someone creating a stub for a 1967 entry for example. Grk1011 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the 'objectives' could do with a revamp to reflect how things currently stand in general. The main point for me raising this here is less about entries for future contests, since yes a lot more effort will naturally go into these since they are newer and there is more information out there, but more around articles which already exist for older contest entries where in some cases there is practically maybe only one or two sentences, infobox with the cover art, writers, ESC placing etc., and that's it. Some of them are completely unsourced as well. As an example, take "När jag blundar" from Finland 2012, which has barely any information on there. I will most likely do a full audit of these articles and list any relevant articles which most likely do not fall within the notability guidelines here; my suggestion would be to redirect these stub article, add in the necessary redirect cats explaining that these articles have possibilities and are printworthy which can help us track these articles as something that can be expanded upon as a full article again in the future, and then potentially remove the links to the now-redirected articles. Of course any song articles out there that have some additional information and aren't total stubs, e.g. chart details, should remain. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support this. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the song have been performed at Eurovision it is within the criteria of inclusion. Then it is down to individual notability or sources available. A mass redirect would be the wrong way to handle this. I Oppose this.BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which criteria for inclusion do you mean? Certainly not WP:NSONG. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are many articles which have competed at Eurovision which I don't believe fulfil the WP:NSONG criteria and would fall under WP:SUBNOT. Details of these songs are included elsewhere on Wikipedia, the year articles, country by year articles, as well as the entries list (1956–2003 and 2004–present). With all these other articles the main parts of these song articles, such as the songwriter information, are covered and therefore there is no loss of information should these be redirected. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree that there are some song articles that easily can be merged with the country by year articles, just like with the majority of the Junior Eurovision songs. Merging them isn't a loss of information for the overall project, no information is lost by doing so. Aris Odi  ❯❯❯  talk  05:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Change "best result" to "highest result"
Posting this because of a small edit war on Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest about the best result field; earlier it was established that "best result" should disregard the number of participating countries, only taking the absolute placement into account. However this clearly still causes confusion, and I think "highest result" would make it clearer and less ambiguous what it means. Pinging involved editors:, &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this change, "highest result" is much less confusing than "best result" because obviously one could consider 17th place out of 19 as better than 12th place out of 12, whereas marking 12th place as "highest result" is much more straight-forward. I would also suggest instead wording it as "highest placing". Aris Odi  ❯❯❯  talk  05:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean it is really confusing to put last place as the best result. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's why I'm suggesting this change. I think "highest placing" as Aris suggested would be even better. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think highest placing is fine. Grk1011 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Same here, I support renaming to "highest placing". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Highest placing" sounds a lot more natural than "highest result". --  AxG /  ✉  15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Technical fix for "Infobox song contest national year" template
Is there any way of modifying Template:Infobox song contest national year, specifically the "Prev" and "Next" parameters, so that it doesn't pick up redirects? I noticed the infobox for the Turkey in 2012 was pointing to a non-existent participation in 2013, due to a redirect in place for that year, and attempts to rectify this to show a blank for no further participation, similar to Bosnia in 2016, were not working. I used a non-breaking space to achieve a work-around, but I find it rather inelegant as there is still a nav button which links to the main Turkey article. Potentially it might make more sense to delete the redirect, which should fix the problem, but figured I'd raise the issue here to begin with in case anyone has any better ideas? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Same issue is appearing for Slovakia in 2012 due to the redirect for their non-existent participation in 2013. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've looked into this, but as far as I can tell there's no way to detect that a page is a redirect. I've come up with another solution though with, so that you can set none or none to remove the link. It's not ideal because it'd have to be done manually for all of them, but it's something. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this! That probably is as good a solution as any, and I don't think there will be many cases where this will be needed, so the amount of work to implement this on the relevant articles should be small. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good fix! Related- I'm going to look through to see if there are any other redirects like Slovakia 2013 that shouldn't have been created to begin with. Grk1011 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Note that this discussion also includes Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Grk1011 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)