Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 33

Relegated countries on maps
Putting a feeler out to gauge member thoughts on adding an additional shading option on participation maps between 1994 and 2003 (excluding 1996) for relegated countries. This would help to distinguish countries that decided against participating of their own accord versus those that were prevented from participating because of their previous results. I've included an example for the 1994 contest here, Italy remains in dark grey as a previous participating country that purposefully did not participate, whereas the other six countries which participated in 1993 but were relegated for 1994 are shown in a lighter shade of blue. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense! ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but I'd rather opt for a shade of red rather than blue, as blue would indicate some sort of participation — IмSтevan  talk 04:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think since red is associated on other maps with competing in a semi-final or other qualification show, personally I would steer clear of this on these maps. I tried a few different shades before landing on this light blue because when I tried other colours with lighter shades I felt that this shading ended up being the more dominant colour on the map. A lighter shade of blue sorta makes sense to me as well given that the countries didn't compete not because of their decision but because of previous contest results prevented them from taking part, so another shade of blue sorta keeps a link with contest participation but without it being clear through a dark shade that they actually competed if that makes sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that's useful. They didn't participate in the end so why bother. Yoyo360 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They didn't participate because they couldn't and not because they necessarily chose to. It's about creating a distinction between countries that probably would have participated if they had the opportunity vs. countries that previously participated but purposefully chose not to compete the following year. In my opinion it also gives the reader more information in a concise way within the infobox than just stating the non-participating countries but without explaining the distinction. Looking at the map in tandem with the list of countries in the infobox you get a better sense of the reasoning behind why these countries did not participate at a glance, just as you would get with maps from 2004 onwards with countries eliminated in the semi-finals. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sims2aholic8 Well I don't agree. It's the exact same as highlighting countries that pulled out late. We should highlight what happened, not being like "these countries would probably have participated was it not for their relegation". Yoyo360 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By shading relegated countries we are highlighting exactly what happened. These countries were relegated, they were unable to take part, and that is backed up by multiple sources, which specifically state that these countries were prevented from taking part. I think coupling relegated countries with every other country that didn't take part would be painting a less clear picture to the reader about the situation in those years. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It makes sense. But red is consistent however, as countries eliminated in Kvalifikacija za Millstreet are also marked red. I'm still of the opinion that light red is the way to go here — IмSтevan  talk 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That does make sense as well. To test this out I've changed the shading within the test file above to a shade of pink. Let me know your thoughts. I think I still prefer the light blue but the pink here isn't too overpowering in my opinion so it could work. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have similar feelings. Both look fine but I also prefer the blue shade. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 10:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah the light red is just not it, it blends too well with the non participants and the background. What about the red we use for NQs? — IмSтevan  talk 10:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to use the same shade as on the maps for 1993, 1996 and 2004 onwards. I feel that should be reserved only for cases where a country actually selected an entry that was in the competition. Using it for other meanings I think would lead to confusion. I know that 1993/1996 and 2004-present are different situations, but for all of these years the eliminated countries had entries, whether we count them officially or not, which is not the case with relegation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8 Can Macedonia truly be considered relegated in 1997 ? They NQed in 96 but that did not count as a participation in the eyes of the EBU and they are not named in the source as relegated, so should they be light blue, light grey or dark grey ? Yoyo360 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They were prevented from participating because of "their bad results in the past 5 years" (nq in 1996) so yeah it counts — IмSтevan  talk 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Were they though ? This source, which is in the article does not list them as relegated (unlike Lux, Rom or Ltu which all were absent from 1996 one way or another) so that's ambiguousYoyo360 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair, since Macedonia technically didn't debut in 1996, they wouldn't have mentioned it. But then again, Macedonia was forced to sit out 1997 and wait for 1998 regardless — IмSтevan  talk 15:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added an additional source for Macedonia and gave it a special mention — IмSтevan  talk 15:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you raised here. I had a similar thought on this before you raised the topic here, but I wasn't able to action on it before I went offline for a few days. I think the new wording which that ImStevan suggested works well here and clarifies the situation better than previously. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Tables for semis
With the introduction of AQs into the semi-final running order (kind of), I believe it would be appropriate to label these countries within the shows, as we do with for example FiK and their pre-qualifiers. It's important to note that as is the case in FiK, these songs are a part of the contest itself, at the end of the day they are competing entries, not interval acts. My suggestion would look something like:

Thoughts? — IмSтevan  talk 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The AQs are not entries in the semi-finals, so I don't think they should be included alongside semi-final participants. Grk1011 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But they kinda are? Performing in the semi-final amongst all the other acts, they have been drawn to be in that semi, the producers will decide where in the running order they'll come, they are competing entries of ESC 2024; so how are they any different other than the fact that you can't vote for them and that they're prequalified for the final? — IмSтevan  talk 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Grk1011. These entries are not competing in the semi-finals, so I don't believe they should be included within these tables. These tables' primary purpose is specifically the results of the shows; yes they are within the "Contest overview" section, and so all aspects of the show should be included within prose, however the tables do not need to contain every aspect of the show. We don't have rows for "flag parade" or "interval act 1" etc. as an example. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I knew there'd be a time when I agree with you. They're competing in the Final, not the Semi Final, so inclusion would not just confuse, it might mislead. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding these replies. Doesn’t add anything but rather confuses. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 10:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur. It does confuse me a bit. They're not in the semi, so why add them? Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 07:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much support this idea, especially since the official Eurovision channels acknowledged these being part of the running order in the reveals today. Usually these draw reveals also indicate the recap, so if during the contest they are also part of the recap, then that would be even more reason to add them.
 * I disagree with it being confusing as they are literally entries being performed in the semi-finals; the only difference is that they automatically go though to the final. If the EBU decides that these countries get to perform in the semis (which is already confusing enough), then in my opinion it should also be somehow reflected in these tables.
 * Here is my suggestion for now, and in the score columns I would put dashes (but that's my nitpicking). — TheThomanski &#124; t &#124; c &#124; 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While the EBU has included the automatic finalists within the running order in the social media posts, they are not included on the official website's semi-final scoreboard pages, which are the equivalent of the results tables on the 2024 article. These tables are principally for the results of the shows, we don't have rows for any others acts performing, so why should we include rows in this case just because they are competing entries in a different show? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with ImStevan here. They're essentially part of the running order as acts actually performing, and per the points above. It's a much better way to include them than to just have in text form "yeah they're performing between song X and song Y" at the top, three times. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No different than an interval act. They're performing, but not competing in the semi-final. The table seeks to show the results of the semi-final. Grk1011 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree with you on the first part of that; they're clearly not the same as interval acts, which as I recall are performed after the songs are over rather than in the middle of them. I maintain my opinion that it looks dreadful to have a long verbiage of who they're performing before and after atop the table instead of just including them. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current wording is a bit cumbersome, but at the same time, as Grk1011 said, the purpose of the table is different—otherwise we would just have a numbered list—and I believe including the non-competing acts is more confusing than anything. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tried to slim the phrasing down a bit by replacing the country names with their running order. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I still believe they should be in the table, I support this endeavour to make the wording a bit less clunky. Could we even cut it down to just the entry they perform after? It does still look a bit funny to me but it'd be better than the previous version for sure. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ser. Yes, that could be another valid option. Let’s see if someone else has objections or proposals. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this point. Toffeenix (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding on, I think it makes complete sense to include them in the table and adds extra context for the reader. -77.102.82.71 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

So...what are we doing here? I'd argue that the table is also meant to present the running order and the participating countries, which AQs are — IмSтevan  talk 18:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If I made my count right, five intervened in favor and five against so I don’t know how we could work this out. I am personally still not convinced we should add them as the purpose of the table is to present the results rather than just the running order. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 20:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the point was that this is supposed to be decided by a vote, but deciding if an average reader would benefit from that additional info in the table, which I believe would be the case. The page will likely see most traffic during Eurovision week and during the shows, I think it's valuable to have those 3 additional countries in the table to avoid confusion, even if they're mentioned in prose — IмSтevan  talk 23:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just meant we don’t have consensus for neither option at the moment. And I still think it looks more confusing to list them among the competing entries—that’s just me though. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are my two cents: I agree with the "conservatives" in this respect, because:
 * 1) the prequalified songs don't compete in the semi-finals, no-one can vote for them in the semis, and the table indeed is a results table
 * 2) they are not part of the official running order
 * 3) I also think their inclusion in the table would be confusing or misleading to readers
 * It makes more sense to include information about their appearance in prose. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These discussions are never votes; the outcome is determined based on the merits and consensus. I agree with EurovisionLibrarian and IvanScrooge98. It could make slightly more sense right now as the tables are titled Participants of... but they'll very soon be renamed Results of... and at that point including the non-competing acts of the respective semi-finals will make little sense. Grk1011 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Simple fix, just have the title say "First semi-final of" — IмSтevan  talk 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A bit late to the discussion here, but I think they are best not being showcased in the table. I'm not sure we'll be able to properly indicate what their role are. Thomediter (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest we wait and see how it is reflected on the night in both the broadcast of the entry itself (graphics, recap, etc) and review the situation then. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding an explanation of what the abbreviation R/O means
So, I think that it's pretty shaky to just write R/O in the contest overview sections on the Eurovision pages. Just like on here, I think we should just add a * to explain what the abbreviation mean. I know you can just put your mouse cursor and see what it means on desktop, but wikipedia has a large user base on mobile, and they can't see what the abbreviation stands for. Thomediter (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As I was saying, I totally get the reasoning, being a mobile user myself. The problem is that this issue is much wider and affects mobile display as a whole – and thus all instances of abbr. If we added notes for all of them, it would be messy; so even if we agree that some degree explanation is worth providing this way to mobile readers, we need to discuss what we should indicate and what not. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think that the abbreviation such as ref. are way less crucial for readers to get the nessecary out of reading the articles, so I think we could either just let them keep being abbreviation with no explanation, or add an explanation of what that abbreviation stands for. Thomediter (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, however the difference here is that on the UEFA article the labels the key refers to are links, and not abbreviations that are used in these tables. I know they also explain on the UEFA article where they do have abbreviations, however I think adding the labels key in the way you did previously is rather messy. I've tried to incorporate this explanation within the prose in a better way, similar to how it was done on the UEFA article. This information was actually completely missing from the article before anyway, so it's good that we've added it now! Let me know your thoughts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely like it better, Sims. Thanks! ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Clifford Brown (Eurovision)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Clifford Brown (Eurovision) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Maps on periphery articles
We currently have maps within the infoboxes on a few articles where the competition element was either non-existent or works different to Eurovision. Thinking in particular Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest (2005), Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits (2015), and Eurovision: Europe Shine a Light (2020). There maps highlight countries which broadcast the stand-alone shows, or in the case of Congratulations distinguishing between countries that broadcast and voted vs. broadcast delayed, rather than highlighting participating countries in a competitive setting as with the usual ESC/JESC et al. articles. I get a sense that these maps are not particularly useful to the reader, and in fact could be misleading as sometimes broadcast plans are not always apparent. My preference would be removing these maps from the articles, however I wanted to gauge the thoughts of the WikiProject on this before any action was taken. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It does make sense to remove the maps, especially if info on the broadcasts is unclear. On the other hand, we could keep them and change their focus to countries whose songs “participated” in the shows, aligning with the header “participation map”—especially for Congratulations which had a winner. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic behind that too. My problem would be that for Congratulations there were two songs from Ireland and the UK, and two artists from Denmark and Sweden in Greatest Hits, so the number of participants would be different from the number of countries. Perhaps that's not as much of an issue though? I just feel the maps make sense when it's an actual competition with actual performances, but any other case there's probably no need. Even with Congratulations when there was an actual competitive event there weren't that many actual performances on stage by the actual artists to really justify a participation map imo. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see the point. I just thought that would have been at least a more consistent usage of the map—after all, songs from different countries are taking part, even if some countries have multiple “entries”. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 10:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the maps are as useful for those events. They're move celebratory than competitive and probably should be using Infobox television or maybe even Infobox concert. Grk1011 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point as well. It may make more sense to move to a different infobox template entirely, given that in the majority of cases these aren't even song contests in the normal sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

ESC Reporter
Hey all, I've nominated an article on a former ESC blog for deletion. Your input would be appreciated; I could well be missing some sources or claim to notability. Thanks! — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ESC 2025 Map
Hey You did not allow overwriting of the 2025 map. I wanted to add back San Marino and Malta and take away Luxembourg but I can't. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ — IмSтevan  talk 03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Media
Being fully aware of the fact that most Eurovision fan media (apart from Wiwibloggs) don't meet notability guidelines, surely some people and sites are notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, perhaps on a new article List of notable Eurovision fan media or something similar — IмSтevan  talk 15:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Would a stand-alone list of Eurovision fan media satisfy WP:NLIST though? I'm not so sure that it does, especially if we go with that the media outlets themselves are not considered notable for their own articles. If they're not notable as individual entries, why would a list of them be required or wanted? Additionally I think there's a risk of scope creep coming into play, that more and more less-notable media outlets start getting added, leading things to spiral out of control. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Some help at Eden Golan requested
Hello WikiProject Eurovision,

I am a fairly new editor who has gotten involved with quite the discussion at Talk:Eden Golan. The main issue of the case is whether she should be described as an "Israeli singer", followed by a short part on her youth in Russia, or as "Russian-Israeli singer". (This problem also exists on the Hurricane song page, however the problem started with a bunch of reverts on Edens page, so the discussion is happening there). Currently 5 editors have been involved, 2 in the "Israeli" camp, 2 in the "Russian-Israeli" camp and me, who is unsure about the situation.

Because of the current situation, we cannot find consensus. Seeing the looming Eurovision 2024 next week, it would be nice to get some fresh ideas in for the discussion. I hope this is the correct place, this is the conflict I have really been part of so I am still unsure if I am doing things correctly.

It is late for me, so I will probably not react for the coming 8 hours. However I hope the information laid out on the Talk:Eden Golan is enough.

Thank you for reading,

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say it should be Israeli-Russian, as her parents are both Russian, having been born in the Soviet Union. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This topic has indeed come up, however her parents are described as Ukrainian and Latvian. Seeing how complicated the relation between now-independent formerly soviet countries and the Russian identity is, this would be a tough sell.
 * Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 21:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Eurovision 2025 - When a country announces an event that historically has been used to specifically to choose its representative for Eurovision, it's a safe bet that they're going to be there.
In example - I've noticed that with Spain and Norway announcing Benidorm Fest and Melodi Grand Prix, instead of interpreting it as the country will participate in the upcoming edition, we just write it down into the other countries column.

In my opinion, if a brodcaster announces an national selection will be held, and that - that national selection historically always has been used to find the representative of Eurovision, we can consider it a confirmation that the country will participate. I understand that with i.e. Sanremo, the history isn't that it's always used to find the eurovision participant, so an announcement of Sanremo 2025 wouldn't mean Italy will certainly compete in Eurovision 2025. But when songwriting camps for Melodi Grand Prix 2025 is announced, and we have written on it's page that "It determines the country's representative for the Eurovision Song Contest, and has been staged almost every year since 1960.", the announcement of Melodi Grand Prix 2025 means Norway's participation at Eurovision 2025 is assured. Thomediter (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the source does not state that it is considered a confirmation, then it should not be included, but they should be mentioned below the participation table, as those song contests and Eurovision have a close connection. The examples you stated would constitute original research — IмSтevan  talk 11:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2024 United States presidential election - look at this - here we also include something 99% certain, but not 100%. If an event specifically made for selecting the Eurovision participant is announced, it definitely means that the country will take part in the contest. Thomediter (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is extensive coverage that the election will happen, nothing in there is original research — IмSтevan  talk 00:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

AQs in semis
So, following the show (sf1), what do we think? I still believe that automatic qualifiers should be slotted into the tables for semi-finals — IмSтevan  talk 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, they should be included. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Netherlands 2024 disqualification
A few minutes ago, it was announced that the Netherlands was disqualified from the final. While it did compete in the semi-finals, it was disqualified from the final. How should this be represented on the map of countries, whether in red like the NQ countries, or a different colour, as it did qualify? Xeroctic (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I say purple color because it's not used any longer for non-selected countries. As a country qualified for the final (blue) and doesn't participate in it (red) at the same time. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰 💬  10:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Purple blends in too well with the rest. Green would be an option, as that is the color of semi-finalists — IмSтevan  talk 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Green is to positive for a disqualification. That would just be misleading. Tvx1 11:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah green is too positive, maybe a darker-grey/black or dark orange? --  AxG /  ✉  12:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe light blue like the relegated countries in older contests? Aris Odi  ❯❯❯  talk  04:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Jury results
Should the Netherlands be included in individual countries' jury rankings? You can clearly see where the Netherlands would've been in each country's jury and individual jurors' rankings based off simply which numbers are missing — IмSтevan  talk 11:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)