Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 25

A discussion with three editors is not carte blanche to redirect every stub Eurovision song article
Hello. There has been a campaign to redirect what seems like every single Eurovision song article tagged as a stub since a December 2021 discussion here started by Sims2aholic8. In that discussion, I see two editors agreeing non-notable stubs should be deleted, one who commented somewhat neutrally and one in disagreement ). I don't know how this has been interpreted as carte blanche to redirect every Eurovision topic tagged as a stub. I'm incredibly concerned Sims2aholic8 has made it their hobby since this meagre discussion took place to redirect articles simply because they're short—including songs that charted highly and even reached number one on various European charts—including to edit war with the user  on Don't Come Easy to retain a redirect. We never edit war to retain redirects on Wikipedia—administrators here staunchly disagree with editors who do this. The next step when you've been reverted for redirecting a non-notable article should be AfD. Either way, this practice needs to stop because I do not think Sims2aholic8 is able to differentiate between what is notable and what isn't: if you are an editor who believes You Let Me Walk Alone should be redirected, I don't trust your judgement on anything music-related and I don't think very many editors would.

Wikipedia does not advocate for redirecting every stub on the website, especially ones with a claim of notability like reaching number one, charting in multiple countries and being performed at Eurovision.  Ss  112   07:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The songs you have reverted have now been submitted for AfD to gain some closure. Let's see what happens. Sorry for trying to improve this place, it won't happen again. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with Ss112 assessment of this situation.BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we start by quitting the passive aggressive comments? Or discrediting other editors based on a single action? Thanks. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, I am stating my opinion. I don’t disagree with all of the redirects. But it is pretty clear that mass-redirects of song articles, songs that have charted in several countries should not have happened. This is not a single action, it is systematic redirects of a large amount of articles, the delinking if said articles on hundreds of pages. Based on a very weak consensus. With that being said, again, I don’t disagree with all of the redirects, but more discretion and thought should have been used.BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah okay, I was mostly commenting on Ss112 saying they did not trust Sims2aholic8 because of one edit on You Let Me Walk Alone. I'm not sure what you mean with very weak consensus though. Do we have to wait until everybody responds before we are able to make improvements? In that case we'd never get anything done. You were the only one who opposed, you gave one argument, I questioned your argument and you didn't respond. Three people there agreed the redirecting should happen. That's stronger consensus than we normally get on this WikiProject. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not one edit by Sims at all. It was many. I am saying I do not trust the judgement of editors who would redirect articles for songs that went to number one, several of which I came across that had been redirected (City Lights (Blanche song) and Nobody but You (Cesár Sampson song) namely), and I stand by that. I am not saying and never suggested Sims has never made good contributions, but I don't trust their judgement in this manner based on what I've seen. On articles that get attention at AfD, if you nominated an article that was a number-one single in Austria, Belgium, or Estonia, people there would also question your judgement and it would probably be closed as a WP:SNOW keep. I really hope neither you nor Grk1011 are suggesting articles that charted in 10 countries should be redirected. This mass redirection needs to stop because this blanket approach is clearly not working. I went through Sims' edits and there were something 10 redirects made in three minutes. There is no way that is quality control or being careful. It looks like a one-size-fits-all approach, and judging by BabbaQ and another editor who commented at AfD disagreeing (saying that songs merely being Eurovision entrants is enough notability) there is disagreement on this approach out there.  Ss  112   14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so here are my thoughts on this. I did check some of the articles Sims2aholic8 redirected earlier, and all of them were non-notable stubs. I do see now that some were actually notable, but I also don't really see the issue with that because it can be easily reverted.
 * You're right, edit warring is indeed never okay. But to call a single revert on the Don't Come Easy page by Sims2aholic8 an "edit war" is a huge stretch. Normally not even three reverts are considered edit warring. There is also no requirement at WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT to immediately list it at AfD once someone disagrees, although it is suggested. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that Sims2aholic8's efforts here have been in good faith and he didn't set out to upset anyone. We are a small group of editors who actively manage thousands of Eurovision articles. It's not any one person's fault that the initial discussion was not well attended. And honestly after taking part in it, I thought, well I guess that's everyone who cares. If anything, that made it more convincing since we (or I) already sometimes feel we are in this alone. A smaller scope of articles was seen as a benefit. Being redirects, I also found it very easy to undo if another editor wanted to step up and improve the article. If someone did undo the redirect, however, I would hope that they would actually improve the article instead of returning it to a poorly sourced stub. A lot of these articles have just fallen off people's radar, which to me, solidifies their lack of notability. As the redirect scope moved from phase to phase, I do see an issue where perhaps editors who focus on song articles should have been alerted to that part of the discussion since it's a shared topic. Older song articles don't really have much of a future and the redirects are valid, but yes, some of these newer ones may well be great as stubs for the time being.
 * For the newer song articles/stubs (most of which have been created by BabbaQ btw, so I can see where your anger may be coming from) there is a bit of time where they can flourish, but sometimes they really aren't notable enough per guidelines. They may not chart or chart poorly, or their entire prose might be a copy/paste from a Country in article. I think the takeaway here needs to be a better framing of not just the notability requirements, but at what point a notable subject is acceptable as a redirect. If you have a song, it makes no sense to go read a stub article about it when a Country in article has so much more information on it. It may be notable because of Eurovision and deserve its own article, but what about when that becomes a disservice to the reader? Grk1011 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A song or any article does not need to be redirected simply because it is a stub. It does not need to keep being edited or being paid attention to justify keeping an article on it. Several of these, as I just pointed out, were articles for number-one songs (City Lights (Blanche song), Nobody but You (Cesár Sampson song)). Most editors who frequent AfD and music topics are never going to say a number-one song should not have an article no matter how short the article may be. AfD editors also say that even if they may vote !keep, they have no obligation to "fix", "improve" or expand those articles (and yes, a great many people who are nominating articles take issue with that, but that's the way it is). A blanket approach is very clearly not working, because there is clearly no quality control or individual assessment going on. 10 articles being redirected in a couple of minutes is not acceptable. Songs that went to number one in countries like Austria, Belgium and Estonia is not acceptable. It was very clearly carte blanche editing based on two or three agreements that did not seem to me to be saying "yes, redirect every single Eurovision-related stub article". I get that that thread got more engagement than most threads get here, but Eurovision song articles do not belong to this WikiProject or any group of editors, so I think this would need wider input if it were to even be done or to continue, but one-size-fits-all redirecting is not working here, there are a great many clearly notable topics being caught up in this and I do not think that is acceptable to continue going on.  Ss  112   14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Every admin I've spoken to has told me that it is never acceptable to re-redirect a song article with a claim to notability (as basically all of these redirected songs have—by being Eurovision entrants) and the next step is AfD. I never claimed this was set out in a policy, but WP:BRD applies. You will also find plenty of editors who say if you've been reverted for a bold edit you made and then you revert that revert, that is starting an edit war. Per WP:Edit war, it is broadly defined as being a series of back-and-forth reverts, which the example of Don't Come Easy was, and I'm convinced the only reason Sims stopped is because Tobyjamesaus expanded the article, which he didn't even need to do. There is never an excuse to edit war, and editors have been blocked before for not even breaking WP:3RR. For you to say or suggest it's only edit warring if you go up to or past three reverts worries me.  Ss  112   14:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, could you please assume good faith? You keep assuming things about Sims2aholic8 based on nothing but guesses. How do you know that Sims2aholic8 didn't look at the articles before redirecting them all at once? Why are you so convinced that Sims2aholic8 would continue reverting? Why don't you just ask them about it, rather than being super aggressive towards them? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the edit warring: BRD is optional, not policy. There are cases where people revert multiple times and that's no problem at all, as long as it doesn't go on for too long. If there is indeed that much consensus that even a single revert is unacceptable in this context, why hasn't that just been added to WP:BLAR then? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is aggressive. It is within rights to question these mass-edits. And quite frankly when doing mass-edits you need to be ready to be questioned about it. BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't trust your judgement on anything music-related and I don't think very many editors would.
 * 10 articles being redirected in a couple of minutes is not acceptable.
 * I'm convinced the only reason Sims stopped is because Tobyjamesaus expanded the article
 * This comes across as quite aggressive to me. Yes it's totally good to question some of the edits that Sims2aholic8 made. It's not good at all to start accusing and discrediting them like that. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think me clarifying no policy applies by saying I never claimed this was set out in a policy, but WP:BRD applies means I understand BRD is not a policy. That doesn't mean editors should not follow it, because they should, and I'm not seeing the reason in questioning it here. That is not what this discussion is about. You are continuing to ignore that I still question Sims' judgement because they redirected articles for number-one songs and songs that charted in 10 countries, including a top three placement in one. I'm sure there are dozens more redirects of number-one song articles I missed. That's too much collateral and recklessness. It's not wild shots or "guesses" about somebody's motive, it's what I saw. If all you're going to do is continue to attack my tone, I'm done here, because that's not why I started this discussion and not the topic at hand, but it's what you're focusing on. I already went to Sims' talk page, by the way. I posted on multiple talk pages—informed an admin, posted here, and posted on their talk page. Why are you so convinced that Sims2aholic8 would continue reverting? Why don't you just ask. What? I already saw two instances (and those were the only instances I saw that they were reverted) where they reverted the editors who questioned them. You acknowledged Don't Come Easy yourself, and Sims said Toby expanded the article, which seems to me to be the reason they stopped. It's not some wild shot in the dark reason I suggested as to why they stopped reverting—Sims suggested it themselves.
 * In this case, they have said they won't continue re-reverting, so great. They shouldn't anyway, nor should anybody else. The next step if you disagree with any reverts I, BabbaQ, or any other editors who notices one of these or any redirect of an article with a valid claim of notability would be AfD, not to edit war. Please feel free to ask an admin whether it's OK to continue reverting somebody if they reverted you boldly redirecting an article, even if you consider it a "non-notable stub", or whether you need to go to three reverts for it to be considered edit warring or for you to face any consequences for it. That is a wild hot take on edit warring and out of step with every admin I've spoken to. All that being said: I'm not here to continue debating that point or debate the semantics of what edit warring is with you. Mass redirection of articles with claims of notability like this is never a good idea and it should stop.  Ss  112   15:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I am focussing on your tone first, because we can't have a constructive discussion if you are constantly attacking Sims2aholic8 like that. I'm happy to discuss the song articles with you if you first just calm down.
 * I did not know about the discussion at Sims2aholic8's talk page. Yes, it looks like they have also been aggressive to others. But they have also said: I really am truly sorry for everything that has happened here, it was never my intention to cause this much chaos or anger from anyone on here. Clearly Sims was acting in good faith here, and I hope you are too. I think it's best if you two apologise to one another. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged Sims was acting in good faith (even if I very strongly disagree) and their apology—that's not what this discussion is about, nor is whether I apologise to them or not. Now, that being said, there are too many song articles that were redirected that should be questioned or reverted to go through them individually with you or anybody. I'm saying mass redirection of stub Eurovision topics overall should stop because of the collateral and clearly notable topics that have been caught up in it all. A suggestion: perhaps Sims should to go to AfD with the more concerning ones instead of redirecting them? Or tag them for notability? That sounds like a good compromise to me. Based on an editor already saying so at AfD, I am sure there are plenty more editors out there who would argue that because these songs are Eurovision entrants that alone makes them notable regardless of whether they charted or achieved anything else.  Ss  112   15:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the mass redirecting should stop; there clearly is no consensus for it anymore. I'd be willing to go through some of the redirected articles and restore the ones that are notable, potentially expanding some of them.
 * I actually had the impression that there was consensus the idea that participating in Eurovision on its own makes you notable. There are multiple examples of Eurovision contestants's articles that did not survive AfDs (some examples I remember are Jean Jacques, Chris Baldo and Elis Mraz), and there's also WP:ONEEVENT which states that these articles can better be redirects to the event. I think the same argument can be applied for songs. If the only info about it is its Eurovision participation, why not just cover it at the article about the Eurovision participation? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I didn't revert all of them. I only restored the ones with (what I thought was) substantial charting from the last month earlier. I'm still not sure if being a Eurovision entrant alone makes a song notable, but the idea is out there and it is why I left the Eurovision song stubs alone each year when it came around, as I assumed that others thought this alone made them notable as well. I suppose there's room to raise that idea (Eurovision alone making something notable) in a separate and more neutrally started discussion.  Ss  112   16:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I can't emphasize Jochem's point enough, though the case for it is stronger for biographical articles as opposed to songs. No matter how many times writes in an AfD that they meet general notability guideline and "are always kept", so many have been deleted or redirected through the process. There is no consensus to keep these articles solely because of Eurovision. This has been reinforced time and time again through those AfDs that it's not a hard and fast rule. I have no problem reviewing each article individually through a wider discussion process. However, I do have a problem with a certain type of misleading response and !vote, a behavior which even extends to improperly closing a discussion as no consensus while also being the only editor in opposition. Grk1011 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need an apology, nor am I expecting one, but thanks Jochem for trying and for the defence. Maybe my language previously had been a bit short, but I did feel somewhat provoked in the previous discussions on my talk page, and for that I will again apologise. Emotions can run high on here which can lead to some explosive results. It's important to remember though that we are all humans, we are all volunteers, no one has to be here, so let's just try to treat everyone with respect.
 * I have never set out to say that the subjects of these articles weren't notable, but just that in their current form it felt better for me for them to be blanked-and-redirected to a more suitable article that covered all details of the country's participation, especially when the vast majority of the articles' contents were clear replicas from said articles. I still believe many of my redirects were valid, but clearly there were a few out there which you felt were undeserved, and at this point I will leave those that you have determined should remain well enough alone.
 * Looking into 2020 and 2021 articles I can still see many examples where I believe WP:BLAR is warranted, but now I fear any edit I make in this regard is likely to be questioned and I will open myself up for further aggression. So I'll ask this forum, do you think, for example, the contents of Da vidna or Alive (Vincent Bueno song) or Freaky! or Looking Back (Aksel Kankaanranta song) warrant a separate article and shouldn't be redirected under WP:NSONG to the much broader country articles? Of course given 2020 the contest was cancelled, potentially the notability in that case may be more questionable, but looking into 2021 there are other similar examples, such as The Lucky One (Uku Suviste song), Omaga, Amen (Vincent Bueno song) and You (Tornike Kipiani song). All stubs, all with very little information and which have been barely touched since they were created a year or two ago. As was raised previously, we can't always ask someone else for every single edit, since then nothing would ever get done, so right now it feels to me like if I try to contribute I'm going to get shot down hard, so why bother? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is quite easy, Ss112 reverted the redirects of the articles that follows section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. And is within guidelines. Sims, you can not seriously think that doing mass-redirects would go unnoticed. Especially when you redirect several articles that are clearly ”not simply a stub”.BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I resent the implication that you feel I did this out of spite or I have some kind of vendetta. I thought I was doing something helpful in tidying up a series of articles which offered a small amount of information, the large majority of which was already included elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm getting very sick of being constantly attached and belittled for trying to do the right thing here. I will also say that the definition of what constitutes a stub article is not exactly concrete, so yes I was being bold when I thought I could see an opportunity to cut down on some of the clutter that exists on here, but I assure you it was done with the best of intentions, and not as a personal attack on you or anyone out there. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I no longer am actively editing Eurovision-related articles, but have seen these mass redirections in my watchlist and have gotten countless talk page messages as I had uploaded much of the non-free media featured on these articles. Thank you for posting this. There was zero reason for these mass redirects, especially for the songs which were indisputably notable. If stubs are so bothersome, then improve them. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I redirected/moved material mainly for earliest contests’ songs, which repeated material at targets (besides lyrics) and those with just some 1/2 UNsourced sentences for covers. I added sources + material and expended several songs articles, and moved info-bits if “country-year” exist (otherwise didn’t redirect). Agree that song’s Eurovision notability is satisfied by another frame (contests/country-year/lists). I do also stress point for popular achievements, as articles  redirected such as Spain’s 1961-song (sourced movie-performance) needs deciding to keep or move movie-bit to current “country-year” target.
 * Needs to add it’s concerning “Sims2aholic8” that from the beginning you literally pointed chart-success for notability-“Keep”, also why I didn’t redirect 1950-60s charting-songs, but afterwards you redirected those. Administrator "SilkTork" noted you to notice material, you realized yourself to move charts info to “country-year” as I can support, but again days later you stopped moving to this same targets. A duality for same situation violates any-one guideline so in such case needs re-discussion on which one path.
 * Another reason I started redirecting-merging songs (apart from agreeing on specific articles and practice redirect); is your previous massive “country-in-year” redirects “Sims2”, where I asked to notice extra-material. You immediately started and already dropped such for 195Os selections. Only after I merged one and restored another redirect, you communicated and admitted you didn’t properly read articles. You were careful after, but soon kept blanking extra-material. So it’s a snowball of losing two-sets of articles+material. Example “Israel-1990” had sourced-exposure you blanked-redirected to song – then redirected the song to general/list article.
 * I also have to share I’m baffled from your complete delete of all my lyrics-moves and changing my redirects to specific tables (anchors) within "list of participants" a month after I started when you were aware of my work before, and further gaslight my edits as “haphazard” or “literally lifting-shifting material”, especially seeing now how you express offense/unappreciated feel. I initially summarized “copy-pasting” to credit others, then made further edits with summaries “splitting/shaping/rearranging” which took me hours on each target. I also added/moved translation-source rather as external-link or even paragraph-attached (as consensus for lyrics on songs articles).
 * Further if I would have known you resist I would have stopped/discussed/omit some “between-the-lines” you find subjective, or you should have. Otherwise the lyrics quotations for free-English meaning are valid-sourced. I would have also been happy to know and redirect to anchors; instead of a detrimental time-energy of duplicate work for both of us. Throughout January we were in parallel contact on another discussion, and you saw one instance (Sweden 1959 song) where I summarized “moving lyrics” (since you reverted a “restore” back to my redirect). Your summaries and no other communication at times dispirit aside the concern about your repeated actions ,and some others instances as the way you talked to an IP who also asked you about removing songs. I contributed gradually for 15 days, more than 80 hours seeing nobody resisted also to where I targeted. I sincerely hope you can understand how I and maybe others also sometimes find it very hard to get things done or feel acknowledged, even when I still believe you are mostly eager and that you don't intend to offend others.
 * Another thing “Sims2”: de-linking songs-titles from Eurovision-contests, disadvantage the redirects to deeper song-selection info (“country-year”) or songwriters (“Eurovision participants” lists). Once "Zouki08" and I suggested adding songwriters+broadcasters. Few months ago you eventually added songwriters to "participants’ lists". Now contests only link countries to general “country-in-Eurovision” which doesn't target this info, and unfortunate for readers and your work.
 * I also point to : Greece-1980 “Autostop” (you added lyrics-source), has a covered-elsewhere-irrelevant details about the singers; as redirect-rational you supported, while you blank articles where “BabbaQ” adds charts, with this discussions to stop redirecting for now stressing chart-notability. Don't follow your actions.
 * Ultimately, some “country-year” explain charts, and songs articles show lyrics; I contribute my view for paragraph on “country-year” if exists (or restore) if only few sentences on a song. Otherwise will participate in AFDs if held later. אומנות (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Small notes for spokespersons
This has been discussed two times before: a year ago on this talk page, and earlier this month on the ESC 2022 talk page. The first discussion resulted in removing the notes for the articles of JESC editions, but I never got around removing them for the ESC editions. There are two main arguments for their removal:


 * What things to mention in the notes and who does or does not get a note is currently unclear and inconsistent.
 * The notes may imply that they are the reason why those people were selected as spokesperson, when that isn't always the case.

The only advantage of the notes that I can think of is that they add some context; otherwise it's just a list of names. However, I think that if you are actually interested in this, you can still easily go to that person's own article to find much more info about them, so not much is lost here. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what the inclusion criteria for these notes would be or how it could be applied. I fear that "context" is exactly what bullet point 2 is trying to avoid as there is no selection criteria for spokespersons overall and it's just sort of whoever the broadcaster wants. I find adding the notes to be misleading. You can click the person's name if they have an article and if the don't it's probably because they haven't met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (i.e. aren't notable to begin with). Grk1011 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree. There doesn't seem to be any particular criteria set out for why these individuals were selected, except perhaps that they need to be able to speak English (or French) at a reasonable level? It's been a mix of past participants, TV hosts, other singers and performers, so including notes for some individuals where there is a past ESC/JESC connection is somewhat inconsistent since not every individual will have a past connection. Clicking the link to the individual's article provides any required context, and adding interlanguage links for those without an article on the English Wikipedia helps to plug any gaps for those which are notable but not so in the English-speaking world. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Average rank
This is something that's been bothering me for a while, but in every country's detailed voting results, we see the jury rank marked as average rank which is quite misleading because simply calculating the average of positions jurors gave each country hasn't been done since 2018. Maybe that collumn should be renamed to something else such as calculated rank or just rank

Instead of having seems much more accurate ImStevan (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We should definitely stop using the term "average rank" now that it is not an averaged number. Just "rank" would probably be the easiest option, but let's see what others have to say as well. Grk1011 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Grk1011 that the current terminology is misleading. I would agree that "rank" is probably the best option here, and for the sake of consistency should be applied retroactively even to years where it was a simple average. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it can remain as "average rank" in pre 2018 years as it is not inaccurate ImStevan (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it could stay as that for pre-2018 years, and as you rightly say it's not inaccurate for those years. The point I was trying to raise though was that it makes more sense to keep all these tables as consistent as possible, hence my suggestion that all the tables, including pre-2018, should be renamed. It's also not inaccurate to rename all these columns as "rank", it still achieves the same purpose regardless of whether it's a pure average or ranking on a curve. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. I suggested only changing the post-2018 ones as to not put more work on our backs than we need (changing all years requires edits on roughly 500 pages) ImStevan (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks like something I could do semi-automatically with AutoWikiBrowser, if needed. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it should be something as simple as searching for " scope="col" | Average Rank " on these articles and doing a find-and-replace. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Scoreboard tables
I formatted the scoreboard table in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 article in exactly the same way as in all the other articles about Eurovision Song Contest editions. The first table contains the detailed jury score, along with a summary of the televoting score; the second contains the reverse. Now that I look at it though, maybe it is a bit confusing to have the televote total in the jury vote table. It may be worth looking into changing all of the tables, which is why I'm starting this discussion at the WikiProject talk page. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's an unnecessary source of confusion and I'd be in favour of removing unrelated scores from the tables. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the tables would be easier to follow if all three totals (tele, jury and overall) were included at all times.  A ndreyyshore  🆃︎ 🅲︎  15:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I too felt few days ago it's somewhat confusing and anyway lacking to see the total for the one voting-sector in the other's sector table, while without an ad-hock total for the table's detailed sector; after seeing the 2 first comments here before "andreyyshore" commented, I started thinking too it probably will be best to show both sectors totals + overall in every semi and final tables, so I'm with andreyshore view. אומנות (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. Apologies, @Jochem van Hees, thank you for clarifying.
 * I would say that having both scores on each table would be best as it provides the sum of the votes on that table at a glance while also showing the other total and complete total. Jaguar83 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at these tables once again, I would also agree that perhaps the best solution here would be to have three columns in each tables, showing the total points, televoting points and jury points received, which would provide a bit more context for the readers. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the structural changes discussed here and applied them to. I will make the same changes to the articles for contests between 2016 and 2021, just figured best to give a heads up here in case anyone had any massive objections (which wouldn't be the first time this week when it came to changes on these articles...) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on layout of "contest by year" articles
Opening an project-wide RfC to determine how best to structure "contest by year" articles, e.g. Eurovision Song Contest 2022, Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Following on from a discussion on the Eurovision Song Contest 1957 talk page, as well as other discussions on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page, I feel greater discussion and consensus from the wider project is required on how best to structure "contest by year" articles. Certain aspects of some of these articles fail Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and I believe there are some opportunities to simplify the hierarchy of these articles and improve the overall legibility for readers new to the subject. From what I can see, the last RfC on this topic was 10 years ago(!), and there have been a lot of developments to the contest since then, so I think it's somewhat overdue that we have a bigger discussion on how these articles are developed and structured going forward, especially given how visible these articles are each year, regularly appearing on Wikipedia's Top 25 Report each year. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Section-by section review
I believe the best way of approaching this review is to take a look section-by-section, as was conducted in the previous RfC. I will create sections below for the current layout of the most recent contests; please feel free to add additional sections as appropriate if you feel there is a need. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead
Falls under MOS:LEAD. Any changes anyone would suggest should be made to the leads on these articles going forward? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
Falls under MOS:INFOBOX. Any thoughts from anyone on proposed changes to the layout of Template:Infobox song contest? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a bit of discussion about this at . There was also this earlier discussion about reducing the info about interval acts, which didn't result in anything but I still think it's a good idea. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support removing the interval and opening acts from the infobox, or at least paring them back. They're way too detailed. Maybe just the names of the acts? Grk1011 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also support removing the interval and opening acts sections here. I think it gets way too crowded and quite illegible. While we could try and pare it back in each article, I think it would end up being quite a task to police this so removing it might end up being a safer option. As for the discussion which was recently happening on the order, I would suggest potentially moving the winning song field into the participants section, but also potentially it could do with being even higher up the inbox. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still in favour of removing opening and interval acts from the infobox. --  AxG /  ✉  16:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had an example on my sandbox for a while where the opening/interval acts were condensed, but it's still quite lengthy. I'd support removing them as it's not really the most important info about the show. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Order of infobox parameters
I'd like to continue the discussion started by at the template talk. One of the most important bits of info, the winner, is all the way at the bottom. One thing they suggested is moving the participants map to the bottom instead. I would support this. (Oh and while we're at it, why is this map collapsible anyway?) &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Location
Quite a key section for these articles. Are there any thoughts on how best to structure this section or changes to the content? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Production
This seems to be a relatively new section, only appearing in the and  contest articles. Should this be something we continue to include in these articles, or is there too much overlap with the "Format" section? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was part of a discussion about this for the 2022 article. I still don't believe there is much crossover between production and format. IMO format is how the contest plays out (like voting procedure changes, how it's arranged), while production relates to the planning and execution of the event, including what the broadcaster is doing. The production became a larger part of the contest in 2021 given the attention to COVID-19 protocols, but it didn't change the format of the event, i.e. countries compete in semi-finals, then go to the final, etc. Grk1011 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would say that does make logical sense, and certainly for more recent contest it would definitely be the right course of action. How would this work though for older contests, where the information on the production is somewhat limited? I would like to avoid shoehorning a sentence or two on production details into a "Format" section. Could one solution be renaming the section in those cases, where appropriate, to "Format and production" and including both within the same section? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One idea might be simply moving it down for editions where it's less important, like where it is currently for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020. Otherwise I think "Format and production" could work too. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Format
Quite a long-standing section that is included in almost all articles. Are there any thoughts on what is best placed to include here compared to other sections? Mindful that we also have sections detailing the participants and results, so should some pieces of information be better off in those sections? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Participating countries
Again, another well-utilised section with a lot of key information. Are there thoughts on how best this information could be formatted in the future, including changes to the structure and information displayed in the data tables? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a solution to my concern, but it always seemed odd for this section to have the results summary in it and it only happens this way because that's how the article developed. When the contest takes place, a section just talking about participants pivots to presenting the results. Not sure what a better section title could be for this, but maybe the "voting" section after it is better titled "detailed voting results". Grk1011 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the title is fine. The way I see it, it acts as a kind of summary of each country's participation in the contest: which artist they selected, with which song, and how well they did. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would agree that it could be a bit clearer the boundaries between participants and results, but I also am not sure what the solution here would be. I had raised a discussion a while ago which went nowhere on adding in a new table listing all the participants, including songwriters, similar to what we currently have for a lot of "country by year" articles, and what we eventually included in the list of Eurovision Song Contest entries, but could this maybe be a solution, by adding this to this section and then having a different section for just the results? I'm also wary though about creating a lot of work for us and wanting to avoid duplication, but it's something maybe to consider? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno, these articles generally are already quite large. Songwriter details would be nice as it's of course a song contest, but I think it'd just be too much. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Potentially maybe instead of including the table we link to the specific section in the "List of entries" article under "further information"? Presently we only include songs after they have been first performed, but potentially we can change that around, maybe by not including running order details until after the shows. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a small thing, but I think "Running order" or "R/O" is a better name for the "Order" column, as I think it's clearer, it's what is used on the Eurovision website, and what is used on pages like . &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with this, it would certainly make things clearer. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * One other point I would say here about the data tables for each show, is there something to be said for including the split votes directly into these tables, rather than in the hidden tables by the detailed voting results? I'm only thinking for 2016 onwards, but potentially maybe it makes more sense now that the jury and public split votes, along with the the total, are shown in the participants/results tables. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is what's done in many of the articles on the national finals, and I think it could work. We'd have to think about the order of the columns though, because currently Place is before Points, but I think it would make more sense to swap them if we were to add jury and televoting points. But then it becomes inconsistent with the per-country participation overviews, so we'd have to change those as well... &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's something I had noticed as well, and it would make things more consistent across all our articles. The best order then I believe for the final four columns would be "Jury", "Public", "Total", "Place", since that also replicates the announcement of the results. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not like the edit of the split results. Could you perhaps keep the split table? It is easier to read the table and find out what rank a country got in the televoting, for example. SatireisUnderrated (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also forgot to mention, it is much easier to see examples of a song getting top 10 in one section, but not in the other with the separate gold shadings. To Eurovision fans like myself, knowing both the split results by points and rankings and who gave who points are important. SatireisUnderrated (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Voting (previously titled "Scoreboard")
This section was recently renamed during work on improving some of the older articles for GA review. Thoughts on the new name, and also thoughts on potentially how best we structure these tables now that the voting system has changed, as well as their position in the article?

One point I will make initially is does it make sense to have these data tables in a separate section to the participants? Right now the flow goes you see all the data tables with the participants and points total initially, and then you have to scroll down further to see the full breakdown of results. Would it make more sense to have one section for each show, including the data table with participants and points total and then straight after the full points breakdown? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I bet that >50% of visits to these articles are to check out which country had which song/performer and how well they placed. At least that's how it is for me. It is way less common for me to be interested in the exact voting breakdown. So I think the current way (with the place and points in the participants section, then a more detailed breakdown later) is fine. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One point to raise if we did keep the structure the same way, is around the section names. Right now articles from 2004 onwards are going to have multiple sections with the same name, e.g. "Semi-final 1" in both the "Participating countries" for the participants table, and then again in the "Voting" section for the detailed results, which causes issues when you want to link to these sections and goes against MOS:SECTIONS. So if we did keep these two tables in separate sections we will need to come up with a better way of differentiating between then. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a single sensible way to comply with that guideline... Also the 12 points sections. Should they be renamed to "12 points in semi-final 1" while it's already in the semi-final 1 section? That seems pointless. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean yes I do get your point here, but there are also technical limitations to having those section headers with the same name, e.g. linking to Eurovision Song Contest 2022 is currently ambiguous and presently links to the table in the semi 1 section (as it's the first one you reach on the article), and then the link for the semi 2 table is Eurovision Song Contest 2022, which is kinda bizarre. Even beyond those sections, we also have two sections in each article titled "Semi-final 1", "Semi-final 2" and "Final", so again if you wanted to link to one section in particular from another article, e.g. one of the country by year articles, then in this case again there are technical glitches. I'm not sure what a solution to this problem could be, but it's just something to bear in mind really, especially as we continue to develop and improve these articles if it were to come up in a GA discussion for example. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like discuss the name of the section, to continue the original discussion. If I understand them correctly, renamed them to "Voting" so that they could also include info about the voting system, but I feel like that information fits better in the Format section. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. I will say that yes I think that information is better placed in the "Format" section, however this isn't always the case at present and in many cases the actual description of the voting system used in each contest is sometimes missing altogether bar a very brief mention in the infobox. In any case I'm not sure how well "Scoreboard" actually best describes this section, and I think it's quite an ambiguous term to be used, as to someone from who doesn't have as much awareness of Eurovision it could potentially mean more about the physical scoreboard as used in sports (and of course in the contest as well, albeit via computer display from 1988) than the actual detailed voting breakdown per country as this section ultimately describes. With this in mind, potentially then a better compromise would be to rename this section to "Detailed results", but also happy to continue to discuss and brainstorm. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Been thinking a bit about alternative names but I can't think of anything better than "Detailed results", except maybe "Detailed voting results" which is a name already used on the per-country participation articles. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Other countries
This section does appear to be controversial at times going by previous discussions. Are there further thoughts about what should or shouldn't be included in this section, e.g. what should be the requirement in which a country should be included here? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's been discussed on per-edition talk pages quite a lot, but I guess it doesn't hurt to reaffirm it here. A country should have an explanation in this section when:&horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is a solid list of criteria for this section, but I'm sometimes not sure about the interpretation of point 2 in particular. Taking a look at articles on some of the more recent contests I personally am not convinced of the value to some of these additions, e.g. in Eurovision Song Contest 2021. In that case, I don't see why some of these entries should be kept, e.g. Morocco (which is based more on rumour than anything), Turkey (some blanket statement from a politician who has little impact on the country's participation), Luxembourg and Bosnia (which are more point 3 with just a few additional details) and Andorra. I would say this information is probably better suited for the specific country articles, as many of the same reasons are cited each year for why certain countries will not participate, but reiterating these again and again on these articles in particular I'm not sure how it is purposeful (my opinion of course). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, good points. How about the criterion being that there must have been an attempt to participate? So then Morocco would not be included because their participation had not been discussed, Turkey would not be included because there was hope but no attempt, and Luxembourg and B&H would not be included because it's merely an explanation of why they didn't participate. Although I think maybe we should allow the latter, as such an explanation is still info kinda relevant to the contest. At the very least we should include it if a country participated the previous year but not this year. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think most definitely a country should be listed if they participated the previous year, but I think there will always be some sort of explanation or news around that decision anyway. On your Luxembourg/B&H point, I get what you mean but I'm still not convinced it's required, and in many cases it tends to be a blanket statement that gets released each year. I know I recall Luxembourg mentioning on several occasions that they only focus on news content now, and that B&H's financial issues are preventing participation, and I feel these statements are better placed on their individual country articles more so than being repeated on each yearly article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been somewhat strict about the inclusion criteria of this section. I don't think any country/broadcaster owes people any explanation about why they chose not to participate in any given year. It tends to be very WP:CRUFTy with many of the refs from Eurovision-focused websites who specifically asked the broadcaster if they were taking part- different from if they released a statement themselves. This section also tends to accumulate a lot of responses like Sims2aholic8 has pointed out (random politician, rumors, etc). After how many non-participation years does a country's bullet point explanation become irrelevant? Grk1011 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Broadcasts
This section has undergone a lot of changes in recent years. Any further thoughts on what changes should be implemented here? Additionally more recent contests have included viewing figure numbers. Is this the right place to include this information, and if so how best should we structure it, given there is some inconsistency? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think viewing figure numbers are certainly worth including, because it's also partly what amounts to the contest's notability. I do think there could be improvements to the way they are presented though. Currently on the ESC 2022 article the table is very detailed but also doesn't really give a good overview; with the JESC 2021 article you can much more easily compare the numbers. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The concern I have with viewers is that they're presented without any basis for comparison despite being in a list where they're sortable. These countries have vastly different populations, so presenting hard numbers without normalizing them doesn't seem helpful. For the JESC article in particular, it does seem that they included the share in the source, so a good start would be to either replace the viewer numbers with the share (decimal or percent) or add the share column. Otherwise we're led to misleading conclusions: "only 75k people watched in Bulgaria, but wow 230k watched in Germany", this is despite the fact that the real take away is that the contest was actually 8x as popular for Bulgarian viewers (8.3%) vs German (1.1%). Grk1011 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would definitely agree that the share is a must here. Taking the JESC figures as an example it's quite difficult to compare these just as it is, cause you'd think in this case that the contest is equally popular in Bulgaria and Germany just on pure numbers, but total population of 6 million vs. 80 million tells a very different story. Also given the data is so patchy in places, and you're only going to get a view of certain countries for certain shows, maybe it just makes more sense to include these in the individual country articles where it can be given the right context more so than in these articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to removing them, as they're not useful on the main article, which is already super long anyway. It does mean though that the few readers looking for viewership data in various countries have to do a bunch more clicks. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not too concerned with people thinking the contest was more popular in Germany than in Bulgaria just because of a higher absolute number. I mean it's basically common sense. What these numbers do show is where the largest markets are for Eurovision. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the information found in this section in many articles is principally or entirely unsourced. I am currently improving individual articles in this series, and while I don't doubt the veracity of the information included and I have put quite significant time into finding sources to back up most of these claims, there will always be certain countries where the information will be close to impossible to find. With this in mind, I suggest splitting the "Broadcaster" column into two, so that the overall parent organisation and the individual channel are shown, as it is much easier to include sources for the former via the individual participant profiles each year on the official website (per this example). This way we can continue to show broadcast info for participating countries where the exact channel or commentator is not verifiable at this time. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd like to take a step back and ask if this information is actually needed. We should technically already know the broadcaster because each country is a member of the EBU with said broadcaster. So this table is listing which specific channels or stations the contest was broadcast on and additionally who provided the commentary. Is this level of detail appropriate or just a long standing practice? Grk1011 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is quite a good observation too. I do think though that maybe the broadcast information is a worthwhile inclusion, since there are on occasions multiple different broadcasters that have represented the countries, e.g. there are the two different Belgian broadcasters that alternate organising their entries, and historically the Russian participation also switched between broadcasters. Taking things a step further the participation can differ between ESC and JESC, with the UK being represented by the BBC in ESC and by ITV in JESC between 2003 and 2005, and for Ireland it's RTE and TG4. On your point around including information around specific broadcasters and commentators for each country I would tend to say that I think this information does have a place in our articles, but I'm open to discussing how best to apply that. Potentially I'm going at this from a somewhat biased position since I have recently put in a great deal of work to improve this section on various articles for GA review, so I'll definitely leave this one open for more discussion. In any case, as an example of what I was talking about above and to aid in the discussion, I've enacted the changes on a trial basis at, with the two separate columns and removing any information that is unverifiable. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that for a TV show, who broadcasts it is among the most basic pieces of information you can have and I'd definitely expect to find it in Wikipedia. Normally it's even an infobox field, although obviously for Eurovision there's way too many broadcasters to list them there. I guess you can make the case that commentators aren't per se necessary but if we're listing broadcasters then might as well add the commentators. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Incidents
A section that in recent years appears to grow more and more prominent. Thoughts on what the criteria should be to determine what should be included here at this level vs. what should be included at a "country by year" level? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Other awards
There has been quite a bit of discussion on this section previously as well. Currently we include the Marcel Bezençon Awards, the OGAE fan poll, and the You're A Vision Award (previously known as the Barbara Dex Award). Is this the right level of additional awards that should be covered each year? Are there additional awards we should consider, or conversely are there any of these that we should reevaluate? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Official album
This does appear to be the right place for this, and the level of detail included seems to be proportional for the article. Any further thoughts or suggestions for change? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I find this section very awkward. Does it need the infobox? I feel like it should just say that an album featuring all of the entries was released on x date by x label and charted in x countries. Grk1011 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not sure the infobox is that necessary either here, and the cover art could be included just as a normal thumbnail image. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the infobox can go. It takes up a lot of space, and normally infoboxes aren't in sections anyway. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

See also / Notes / References / External links
Combining these supplementary sections into one discussion section. Falls under MOS:SEEALSO, WP:CITE, WP:EL and H:FOOT. Any thoughts on how best these should be formatted, and in the case of the "See also" section what should and shouldn't be included? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Other sections
Any thoughts on what could potentially warrant having its own section? There are also potentially other sections which exist on some articles which could be merged with other sections. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion
Since the RfC was closed by bot, I'll summarise the key takeaways here. If anyone has any further points feel free to raise these, or if anyone disputed the following then please do contribute, otherwise the outcomes from this discussion will be actioned. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Infobox: Majority supported the idea of removing or reducing the size of the opening and interval acts fields.
 * Production: Section should be included going forwards; for articles with limited information this can be merged with Format to create a "Production and Format" section.
 * Participating countries: "Order" column to be renamed to "Running order" or "R/O"; points and placing columns to be reordered, and jury and public points to be added directly to each show's tables rather than as a separate table in the "Voting" section for contests 2016 and onwards.
 * Voting: Section to be renamed, potentially as either "Detailed results" or "Detailed voting results"; other discussions around complying with MOS:SECTIONS were inconclusive
 * Other countries: Criteria for inclusion to be modified so only countries where an attempt to participate has been revealed, with other blanket statements from broadcasters/politicians to be rejected.
 * Broadcasts: Unsourced material on broadcasting channels and commentators to be removed; viewing figures from each country are better placed on the individual country articles
 * Official album: Infobox is not required and should be removed
 * All other sections were not discussed

Split results as part of results tables
Starting a new section here to discussed the points you raised in the RfC section; forgot to close and archive that discussion so any new developments should be kept to a new section going forwards. I realise moving this information into the main tables will be an adjustment for some people, however it doesn't really make sense now that the points are permanently split into jury and public to continue to store these in a separate table. It made sense when there was a combined points provided for each country (2009 to 2015), which was not the point of the discussion and will remain the same, but now the points are split and provided directly they should be kept in the results tables themselves. Besides the duplication of information that would be found if we kept two separate tables the EBU also does not provide a ranking list for each country for the separate jury and public points, especially since 2016, so actually it could be misleading to refer to these countries in that way, and is in some ways irrelevant. Additionally, by the sheer fact that this WikiProject exists shows that there are lots of Eurovision fans out here (myself included) who all have differing opinions on how these articles should be constructed, so you don't have a monopoly on what "Eurovision fans" think. Of course however discussion is a key part of this community, so the more voices and opinions on this and other topics the better. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies, my specific remark on "eurovision fans" was a bit snobbish in hindsight. I just feel that the new system is a bit more difficult to read for comparing the jury-televote split, which is an important part of the results. Perhaps, in the split sections, it would be possible to have a separate shading for top 10 in jury/televote? SatireisUnderrated (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The EBU actually provides separate ranks for Jury and Televoting, albeit *per country*, which is even more detailed than what was originally in the article. Anyways, I have a number of issues with the changes: I think the restoration of the split results table (in the voting section) would be best. That said, the split results table could also possibly use clearer rank indicators in addition to the shading to better adhere to MOS accessibility standards. Blue Edits (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's now inconsistent with the previous years with both televote and jury. I understand that the voting calculations have changed from previous years, but not so much that it justifies the same type of information being kept in entirely different sections across the different years;
 * The new results table in "Participating countries" is even wider and messier due to the move, such that sorting the table to look for information is difficult, especially on mobile as you cannot see both the entry/country name and the score at the same time;
 * In the first place, voting details should be in the voting section, not in the participating countries section;
 * Instead of it being a matter of moving the information, there's actually loss of information because the top 10 of the jury and top 10 of the televote are now not shown anywhere.


 * I do understand some of your concerns here. However, if I take it point by point on what you are saying here, I'd like to provide a response.
 * 1) yes it will be somewhat inconsistent, however it is a different voting system so it will create some inconsistencies. The article on the will also be inconsistent as the full results of that contest are unknown, but including columns there for points and placing just for the sake of consistency makes zero sense; in the same vein, given the change in voting method it no longer makes sense for this level of detail to be hidden away in collapsible tables.
 * 2) There are lots of large tables on Wikipedia, it's in the nature of data tables to sometimes grow quite large at times, but this is where text size changes and zooming on the browser comes into play
 * 3) The detailed results, i.e. the exact breakdown of each country's votes, still remain in the "Detailed voting results" section, nothing has changed there; all that has changed is the addition of two columns to reflect the fact that both the jury and public points are equally weighted and reflected as such, just as it is done on other Eurovision related articles e.g. country articles detailing national selections
 * 4) Why is this important exactly? It doesn't actually make a difference to the overall result whether a country came in the top 10 in one or both of the separate voting sections, so why should we call it out specifically? Yes it's an interesting bit of statistics and trivia, but is it something that has a place on Wikipedia?
 * I would also like to point out that these changes were not just some whim of mine, they were part of a series of wide ranging discussions on these articles. It's just annoying how a lot of people refuse to actually engage when the topic of how to improve these articles comes up and then come complaining once an outcome has been reached and is being actioned, even from the limited number of individuals who took part, but I suppose that's just the way it goes. This isn't a dig at anyone on here specifically, just me venting, since it's become something of a trend recently for a lot of people to take swipes at me as the one to actually put in the work. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: this is the topic of a reddit thread, where it seems by far most people do not like this change. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's it, I'm done with the pile-ons and the pressure from all sides and just the general annoyance from people over this, so I'm just going to change it back. Life is too short to fight over something like this, it's such an insignificant change in my opinion and it's a fight I'm not willing to die for. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think that it was better from a logical point of view; like we don't need a separate table for this. But yeah if so many people apparently dislike it then we should revert it. Thanks for the effort that you put in anyways. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yeah that's my thinking too but yeah if it's causing this much aggravation then it's just not worth it. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility of semi-final table
''Moved to new section. Was originally incorrectly placed in the closed RfC'' Blue Edits (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

(I've never posted here before so apologies if I have done this wrong.) It was discussed here that we might want to look at a more accessible table design to show semi-final qualifiers. I think this could be done just with a Qualified/Did not qualify column, does this work for you all? Toffeenix (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wasn't that column added after that discussion? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it unless I've misunderstood the intent. Toffeenix (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I added it . &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a legend before each table that shows that those rows highlighted are qualifying countries, which is also included in the prose paragraph at the start of each section. Is this not sufficient? Granted the legend should also be included in the "Detailed voting results" section as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I too was under the impression that the Qualified/Did not qualify column added a few months ago satisfied this concern. We're trying to follow MOS:DTT and I thought we were there now, but is there something specific that is supposed to be done, but isn't? Grk1011 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's my bad; misunderstood the request. Would it be worth something in the 2008 and 2009 semifinals that show which entry qualified with the jury though? Qualifiers being marked with colour seems fine when it's the Top 10, but when it isn't maybe we should have a clarifier? Otherwise screen readers might not pick up on it. Toffeenix (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, didn't think about that. We could add a '†' for the jury qualifier? (And of course also put that in the legend.) &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea! I've gone ahead and made those changes now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Order of countries in navboxes
I just noticed that a lot of navboxes for contest editions have the countries sorted by final placement. However, the primary purpose of these navboxes is not per se to convey information but to assist in navigation. So I think it would be better to just sort alphabetically, as that makes it easier to find certain countries. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that alphabetically would help users find the articles they're looking for. Grk1011 (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that does make sense to me too. Going alphabetically would certainly make it easier for readers to find articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request on Wikimedia Commons
I have created a deletion request on Wikimedia Commons to discuss the plethora of Eurovision heart flag logos which have been created in the past couple of years. I would greatly appreciate if WikiProject Eurovision members would add to the discussion on the discussion page on that site. Any help with adding the "delete" template to the individual file pages would also be very much appreciated, as I'm not sure if there's a bot that will help with that! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this! Is there anything we should keep track of here? I'm not too familiar with Commons' deletion processes. Grk1011 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! I don't believe so, given it's a separate ecosystem that is shared across all Wikimedia sites, so I believe the best place to host the discussion is on that deletion request discussion page. My note here was more just of a heads up to WikiProject Eurovision members given the inherent overlap. I realise these images are seldom used on the English Wikipedia, but they do seem to have usage on other sites so perhaps nothing will come of it. 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

ABU International Dance Festival 2017
Does anyone know if the ABU International Dance Festival 2017 actually took place? The article is a future tense time capsule from 5 years ago with nothing but bot and formatting edits since early 2017. The event supposedly took place in January 2017, but even in March of that year, there were still unknowns? I did some searching for updated references, but don't have any leads. Grk1011 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The linked official website is now dead but a archived version from 2019 on the ABU website still had language in the future tense, which leads me to think that this event failed to materialise. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Marking tied positions with equal signs
Since I refuse to engage in edit warring behaviour I hope this forum can help settle this issue. Bielzebub1981 added in a series of equal signs (=) to mark instances where two or more countries tied for the same position. I removed these as I believe that this addition is redundant, doesn't add any value or additional information, makes the tables look ugly, and actually sends a confusing message around the importance of distinguishing between positions that didn't exist prior to 2008 when the rules were changed. I don't think it is necessary to highlight that two countries shared a position, since no official sources conduct the same behaviour. These additions were readded by the user and I am now raising this point in order to gain consensus on the matter. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that they shouldn't be there and that is why when I saw you undo the edits last week I didn't object. I don't think the equals sign adds anything. Grk1011 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv Uploads
Hey everyone, I found out how to easily find press materials for many of the contests over the last 20 years. This includes rules, rehearsal schedules, etc. The wayback machine has a url list that was scraped from the eurovision.tv website. See here. It's not complete, but has been super helpful. Grk1011 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a great find! Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the project! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Popular pages
I opted the project in for the "popular pages" list as seen here. Very interesting results.. I'm not sure where a a good place to keep the link for it is though. Suggestions? Grk1011 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unrelated question, but based on the list, why is Voice of Vietnam and Mediacorp listed as Eurovision related subjects? Or am I missimg something. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably because those broadcasters participated in the ABU festivals, but that seems tenuous at best... Blue Edits (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great addition, thanks for opting us in Grk1011! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made some tweaks to the tab header template that we have on all our pages to add the link to this page now, while also removing the link to the now-redundant Eurovision Cup page. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper archives
Hey everyone, I found this very useful list of online newspaper archives on Wikipedia, so I decided to bring this project's attention to it. See it here. Danilmay (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources list
I feel like the list of reliable sources we have at WikiProject Eurovision/Sources should be re-evaluated. I'm particularly thinking about Eurovision Ireland, which is listed as reliable but is spreading the fake news that Croatia would be returning to JESC, based solely on a fake Twitter account claiming that. To me this shows they don't even spend a little bit of effort checking their sources. I've also noticed that some of the sources listed as having WP:COI and WP:SELFPUB issues, namely ESCPlus and ESCXTRA, are actually widely used in articles.

I am personally not very familiar with the guidelines for what makes a source reliable though. The list used to be reviewed annually by, but they are no longer active in the project. So I'm hoping other people can help give input. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Dropping links for convenience: WP:RS, WP:SOURCE, WP:RSN (this may be useful because there are lots more people there who can help with specific sources). Blue Edits (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have had the same thoughts recently as well, so thanks for bringing this up Jochem! I think a full review of the sources listed on that page, plus any additions which we could add to that list would be very beneficial. It would also be a good benchmark for article reviews, as something to point to should we get queried during GA or FA/FL reviews about any particular sources. As an example, some of the GA reviews I have put forward for articles have resulted in questions around Diggiloo Thrush as a reliable source, a site we use regularly across our articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you ever go through with this, drop a line at WT:ALBUMS if you're looking for more input. There's generally a few editors such as myself that have worked on creating WP:RSMUSIC than may help chime in. Sergecross73   msg me  17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Voting system" in infoboxes
Can we agree on how best to fill the "voting system" field in the contest infoboxes? It got quite out of control on the 2023 contest page (see ) and I tried to simplify it to the best of my ability but not sure how it is now is really great either. Any ideas on how we could improve this, striking the right balance on how much info to present? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What about removing the field entirely or reducing it as little as a link to Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest? It seems redundant to tell the reader how people voted but not what the results of those votes were (beyond the winner and disqualifications). At most, I think the system should be mentioned in the prose near the Scoreboard section. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As I'm bringing a lot of these articles up to GA status, I've been making sure to include a full overview of voting system in the "Format" section. I do see some merit in including it in the infobox, but if it's becoming too unweildy then maybe it does make sense to remove entirely. I would say the same thing about the "Opening act" and "Interval act" fields as well, given how massive they've become too. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current wording Each country awards one set (in the semi-finals) or two sets (in the final) of 12, 10, 8–1 points to ten songs is concise enough without going into the minute details about how each point value is obtained. Any further detail is basically the in-depth explanation. I do remember a prior discussion about the opening and interval acts and well and would recommend removing those sections as it appeared that was where we were headed. They're not really critical aspects of each year's contest. Grk1011 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll keep the current wording as is in this case. If there are no further objections raised I suggest deleting the opening and interval fields from the infobox template. I'll give it a couple of days and then go ahead with that action if no further comments are added here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral on the voting system in the infobox-- I think "the first–from a professional jury, the second–from viewers." isn't too long to have for the other years, but I can see why that doesn't work so well for the 2023 contest. Support for removing the opening/interval acts from the infobox, since it's already in the article body and is getting very unwieldy for the more modern contests. Blue Edits (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * From a consistency point of view I think it makes better sense to completely remove the jury/public distinction from the 2016-2022 articles. We don't include that information for any other contests post-1975 and to include so would add unnecessary complexity, especially for between 1998 and 2008 where I believe it would get confusing as not every country used televoting. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize it was only in those years. That sounds good to me then. Blue Edits (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What does "(tm)" mean?
"Thomas Stenström (tm)" is in the original version of Melodifestivalen 2013 by User:PokerFace3. What does the "(tm)" mean? I dropped a bunch of "(m/l)" from the same position, which I assume means "music and lyrics". The best dictionary match I could find was "techno mix"?? -- Beland (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It means "text (och) musik", which in Swedish means "text (and) music". If you check the Swedish-language article for the same year it has songwriters listed with (t), (m) or (tm) beside them depending on if they wrote text, music or both. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Opening & interval acts" in the infobox
Following the previous discussion (raised by in May 2021 with comments from,  and ) which resulted in the removal of these fields in the infobox, I have tried to incorporate the lost information into the lead or main body of each article. It seems no consideration was made for the smaller contests and events. Surely it is only the most recent adult contests that, at the time, were overly detailed so not sure why the fields had to be completely removed from the template? Is there a character limit for infoboxes? Fort esc (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The size of the infobox was likely the initial reason for the conversation, but I believe the strongest argument for removal was that the opening and interval acts aren't integral parts of each contest edition and including them in the infobox was giving them undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts in reclaiming this information . I certainly believe that the whole issue was considered before the fields were removed, and from a consistency point of view it made more sense to scrap the fields entirely rather than just removing the information from newer ESC articles. Additionally, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE infoboxes should be designed to supplement information that is already in the article, not to supplant it. It makes sense then to have key information such as dates, location, key individuals etc. but opening and interval acts are, as points out, not an integral part of every contest, and trying to summarise these within the infobox, especially never events where there are sometimes several acts in each show, is quite an unwieldy process and makes it difficult to understand within the small frame of the infobox. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)