Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Carpe Diem capitalization and redirect

Hey, y'all- my page for Carpe Diem (Joker Out song) just got redirected without any prior notice to a new page by a user who also created pretty much the same page, but with a lowercase d in the title. The reason of why I initially created it as "Carpe Diem" as all official sources (iTunes, Spotify, Eurovision, etc.) have it as "Carpe Diem". It seems to have been redirected by a user without any discussion, prior notice, nor reason for the redirect. Please help me sort this out. Thanks! Nascar9919 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and they also seem to have copy-pasted everything I wrote into their creation, with the title being the only difference. If this becomes a major issue, could we have a discussion over it? I personally believe that the one with the "Carpe diem" title should be a redirect to the one with the "Carpe Diem" title, as that is the official spelling of the song. Nascar9919 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion continues here: Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2023#Capitalisation_of_Slovenia's_entry. Grk1011 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In general, this falls under WP:C&P, which is disallowed. If the new page title is kept, request a histmerge. IceWelder [✉] 16:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A-class assessments

I propose that we remove A-class from our assessments. In reading some recent WikiProject discussions, I found that apparently only WP:MILHIST uses this class in practice. We only have one A-class article, Eurovision Song Contest 2012, for which the assessment was rather haphazard and arbitrary. There has also been some confusion about which level is higher [1]. IMO, GA class is more recognizable, reputable, and a better indication to readers and editors about the quality of an article. Additionally, I don't see us taking the time to organize the required reviews for A class. Grk1011 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this point Grk1011, this is something that has also been in the back of my mind for a while now. I wasn't aware that A-class doesn't have that much support across the WikiProjects, and I agree that GA-class has a much broader awareness and reputation across Wikipedia, so I would definitely support your proposal to remove A-class from the WikiProject Eurovision assessment ratings. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I support removing A class and focusing on GA instead. Blue Edits (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll wait a few more days and see if anyone else chimes in. This seems pretty straight forward and uncontroversial/inconsequential. Grk1011 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I will begin removing A-class. Grk1011 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic to Czechia

With Eurovision.tv now referring to this country as Czechia and uploading the entry under the name Czechia, should this be an exception to the policy and the country be referred to as Czechia in the tables? ImStevan (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see ongoing discussion here. Grk1011 (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alika Milova

I am working on a page for the Eesti Laul 2023 participant, Alika Milova. I have submitted it for review and I was wondering if someone here is available to review it. DSOFOreverTYU ~ talk ~ Eurovision 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone is available to review it, please answer me. DSOFOreverTYU ~ talk ~ Eurovision 08:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Formatting of content in "X in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY" articles

Certain content, especially tables with voting results, are formatted very differently in individual year-per-country articles as opposed to the articles about the main events. As they convey similar information and are within the scope of the same project, it feels as though they should be written in the same, consistent style. There seem to have been some style-related discussions in the past, but I could not find a formalized MoS. Is there a particular reason those articles go against the established style of ESC articles (and indeed most other Wikipedia articles)? If not, does the project plan to draft a MoS and apply it consistently? IceWelder [✉] 16:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The closest thing we have right now is this, which probably needs to be updated and could be a good home for whatever MoS might be agreed upon. Do you have specific examples of the issues you'd like to discuss? Grk1011 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Consider, for example, the following articles from this year: Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023, Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023, Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023, Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023, and Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023. Looking solely at the tables, one finds that:

• Some tables have cenetered cells, some have some centered cells, some are all centered cells.
• Some tables are sortable, some (of the same kind) aren't.
• Some tables are collapsible, some (of the same kind) aren't.
• Some enumeration columns use the proper "1"/"2"/.../"n" style, some use "1st"/"2nd"/.../"nth".
• Casing and presence of table titles varies. The titles given often just repeat the prose with no clear purpose.
• Some tables have sources in the title instead of on the columns the hold the sources' information.
• Some articles feature table after table after table, making them poorly navigable.
• Some articles call the order of appearance of songs "Draw", some "R/O" (as established in the main articles).
• Perhaps most pressingly, most tables are horizontally centered within their articles. This is purely cosmetic (with a negative effect at high resolutions), does not match the general Wikipedia style, and is not in any way an improvement for readers. If anything, it hampers accessibility.

This list would likely grow longer with every article you check, especially when going over previous years. I think there is a clear case for why this project needs at least basic formatting guidelines that applies to all articles, not just the contest ones. IceWelder [✉] 17:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I would certainly support more consistency with tables across the articles. A lot of the inconsistency comes down to the articles being developed at different points of the existence of this WikiProject, and the formatting has changed quite a bit. Potentially holding an RFC to determine a concensus across the project on these points might be useful, which we can then record for future article development. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan eurovision 2023

I just saw on eurovision discord that the Azerbaijani representative for esc 2023 will be announced on 8th of March, with the song being released later on, Should we add this information to the esc2023 page? Adxm e12 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Discord is not a reliable source on its own because it's a self-published source. If whoever sent the message has a reliable source, then you can use cite that source. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Dates

Adding "From March 6th To March 13th" for everything unreleased as every entry should be released this week

Source : https://twitter.com/samuelbaugh/status/1632652235200159744?t=pKYtuFOmyrxPuJMC1kA-dQ&s=19 Adxm e12 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only is a random tweet from a Wiwi writer not a reliable source, but submission deadline =/= release deadline. Blue Edits (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Pravi

I'd like to alert the project that this article has been in a very poor state for a few months now. I have fixed the worst, but I don't have time to completely clean the thing up right now. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick review and made some changes. Still needs more work though. Grk1011 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've pitched in with some copyediting! Blue Edits (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Colour of semi-finalists

Suggestion - should we add a separate colour to the map for semi-finalists who are yet to compete in a semifinal? The Serbian Wikipedia uses blue for that matter Aleki37 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't personally see the point of having another colour. We already have a separate map that covers countries competing/voting in the two semi-finals, and the blue colour would only be useful for a limited time, given the contest is two months away, at which point countries would revert to green and red. Additionally since most countries compete in a semi-final it doesn't really add much to have all but six countries in blue and the rest in green. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see your point. But it still bothers me that for years that have passed (eg. 2022) the green says "participating countries" while red says "did not qualify" as it hints that the non-qualifiers aren't counted as participants. I would edit the green after the semis have passed to say "finalists" Aleki37 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair point, and it's not an issue I believe to change the label for contests from 2004 onwards to make that distinction. Perhaps it could be made a lot clearer that countries in green mark finalists and red mark semi-finalists, while keeping the labels as they are now for the 1993 and 1996 contests. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Detailed results

What if we added a red line at the qualification line in articles from 2010 to 2022 to further point out which countries were to qualify according to the jury/tele

Split results of semi-final 1

Place	Combined		Jury		Televoting
	Country	Points	Country	Points	Country	Points
1	Ukraine	337	Greece	151	Ukraine	202
2	Netherlands	221	Netherlands	142	Moldova	135
3	Greece	211	Ukraine	135	Armenia	105
4	Portugal	208	Portugal	121	Norway	104
5	Armenia	187	Switzerland	107	Lithuania	103
6	Norway	177	Armenia	82	Portugal	87
7	Lithuania	159	Norway	73	Netherlands	79
8	Moldova	154	Iceland	64	Greece	60
9	Switzerland	118	Lithuania	56	Albania	46
10	Iceland	103	Croatia	42	Iceland	39
11	Croatia	75	Latvia	39	Austria	36
12	Albania	58	Denmark	35	Croatia	33
13	Denmark	55	Moldova	19	Denmark	20
14	Latvia	55	Albania	12	Bulgaria	18
15	Austria	42	Bulgaria	11	Latvia	16
16	Bulgaria	29	Slovenia	7	Switzerland	11
17	Slovenia	15	Austria	6	Slovenia	8

ImStevan (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That'll fall foul of WP:SYNTH doktorb _words^deeds 06:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be a case of WP:SYNTH, i.e. taking different pieces of information from different sources (in this case, that these countries in each semi-final qualified, that the top 10 countries in the semi-final qualify, and that this was the voting system used for this contest) and creating a link between them where this isn't evident in any source or necessarily relevant to the article (that these 10 countries would have qualified from this semi-final if this system was used). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Project mainpage

Sims2aholic8, AxG, and Jochem van Hees: Tagging y'all as pretty good with templates and wikicode. With the new Wikipedia skin, our Project Home Page formatting doesn't fit properly with two columns anymore. I tried to figure out how to fix it, but couldn't get it to work right. Anyone willing to take a look? Grk1011 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not perfect but I've had a go and trying to condense rows of text. (Now if you don't mind I'll be switching back to Vector legacy.) -- AxG / ✉  21:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed it! Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe we do use the general quality assessment guidelines so this should be fine. Grk1011 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I think using this new functionality should generally be fine for WikiProject Eurovision articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect of Eurovision song articles

Hi, I think what happened to the Eurovision song articles in en: is complete crap. Whoever made that fantastic "concept" should notice that Eurovision songs are notable in general because of the large amount of reception that they get at the ESC. Now we have a patchwork and noone knows when to start a song article. This should be massively rethought and reverted. Best regards from Germany. Iconicos (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Iconicos: You're a bit late to the party on this one. Please read this and this for past discussions on this same topic. If you want to revert the redirects and create new articles, then go ahead, but they will need to pass the Wikipedia notability guidelines, including specific guidelines on WP:NMUSIC and WP:NSONG. I also disagree with your assertion that just because a song competed in Eurovision that that makes it notable enough to warrant its own standalone article, and in many cases I believe a redirect still makes better sense to allow for the consolidation of relevant information into one article where appropriate. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it's never too late to rethink wrong concepts. First of all: Most versions of Wikipedia accept ESC song articles. So it makes absolutely no sense to establish unnecessary restrictions here in en:. It makes Wikipedia usability and international comparability worse. Isolated solutions are never a good idea. Destruction of articles isn't either. Articles should be built up continuously, not merged an redirected. It's a wrong way. I saw articles which where redirected which contained song information, which is now missing. A song is not merely participation in the contest. It gets reception over the years and, again, it is already notable for the overwhelming reception that it gets at the ESC itself. I do not accept this as the result of one or two discussions. The redirected articles should be restored so that they can be expanded.--Iconicos (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am certainly very open that on occasion individuals may make wrong decisions, myself included obviously. The main crux around why I pursued this redirecting policy (with backing from other WikiProject members I must add) was because there was a large chunk of articles covering Eurovision songs which had essentially stagnated. Of course we should strive to continuously improve articles, however this is a project founded upon volunteers; we all contribute based upon our individual interests, however there appeared to be very little interest in improving these articles in particular. Many were poorly sourced, or in some cases completely unsourced; many also contained unacceptable original research through lyric summaries; and in general a lot of these articles, particularly those from the 1950s-1990s had very little information to convey other that the song existed, the songwriters and how it did in the contest, all of which are available elsewhere on Wikipedia and thus can be accessed through redirects, as is common practice with blanking-and-redirecting and a method to avoid deletion and losing the edit history. I have always maintained that if someone wanted to come along to recreate these articles and improve upon them, adding new information and making them worthy articles, then they should be able to and I would celebrate this, but as I mentioned above it's important that the notability guidelines and Wikipedia policies are maintained to ensure that we don't have a bunch of additional stub articles with little or no information and/or sourcing that require more maintenance with little prospect of improvement. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This policy will be unsuccessful and limit Wikipedia in its main function; users won't add anything to redirects. It's against WP:STUB and will perpetuate the situation with simply no chance to improve. It is wrong and has to be undone. The initiative of one single user decides about the future of hundreds of articles, regardless of international correlations. This should be discussed on a much broader basis. I also can't see that anything stagnated; every year all songs in en: received articles. But now this is in question and users will be probably demotivated to add anything here. No, this not only wrong way, this is dead end.--Iconicos (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus. There was a general consensus that just being a song that was in Eurovision did not prove WP:NOTABILITY. We have established guidelines like WP:NSONG that were developed with broad consensus already, outside of the Eurovision realm. Some Eurovision songs were notable, have charted in many countries and therefore have articles. Some were simply not popular or notable outside of someone singing it on TV one day. Any editor could also create an article on a song that doesn't have a page if they'd think it would meet notability requirements. I want to emphasize that this isn't myself or Sims2aholic8 that unilaterally decided this. It is a Wikipedia policy. Remember that there were at one time hundreds of 1 sentence stubs with no sources at all for nearly 15-20 years and honestly that's what limits Wikipedia in its main function and reputation. No one is preventing readers from learning about the songs that were part of the contest. Most are already included in much greater detail on other pages. Grk1011 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is plainly wrong; the redirected articles had much more than basic information; they were not "one-sentence stubs". ESC songs are not performed for one day, most of them qualify in many competitions, in TV performances each of them watched by millions of viewers, so they are popular before they go to ESC. And they are covered on international TV and press. To assume that this is not the case and to demand that every song has to prove it is an unworldly ivory tower position, the results of which made Wikipedia worse. And no, the information is NOT included in much greater detail on other pages. I simply don't accept such an X for an U.--Iconicos (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For example take Theater (song) [2]; there are sources, there is an article which is much more than a one sentence WP:STUB. It contains lots of information about the song. So it is just ideology to redirect that one, and there are hundreds of such articles which now can't be found anymore.--Iconicos (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

All of that is about Eurovision and the performance, not solely about the song. It is all supposed to be in the Germany in 1980 page (with references, for which there were none prior and still none provided). The song would likely need to have some notability separate from the contest to meet the notability requirements to be standalone. Grk1011 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again. There is clearly exclusive song information which you can't deny, and it's not on the other page. And no guideline says that ESC songs have to prove notability separate from the contest (which would also be given for this song in particular, as true experts know). No other event than ESC could generate more notability*.--Iconicos (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• ...and that is even more, because it is a song contest, not a singer contest! So the songs are the main thing!--Iconicos (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you'd like to change the way things work here, I'd suggest WP:NSONG would be a great place to start. Grk1011 (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing wrong with WP:NSONG. But you didn't show the guideline that says would likely need to have some notability separate from the contest. Where is that? Come and show me, please.--Iconicos (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm all set here. You have my answers and the path to start a discussion at the right location. Not really much else to say. Grk1011 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. And this is obviously the right location, because the lack of good arguments on your side is obvious. The articles have to be restored.--Iconicos (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that Grk1011 is providing multiple valid and strong arguments supported by policies and guidelines agreed on the English Wikipedia, however you are providing zero constructive arguments to refute these policies other than basically putting your head in the sand and shouting about it being wrong. The majority of the articles which had been redirected were essentially bare articles with zero sources and which info is already essentially replicated on the articles pertaining to their participation (some examples include Uh, jeg ville ønske jeg var dig, Intet er nytt under solen, Keep Me Warm, Io senza te, Það sem enginn sér, Niemand heeft nog tijd, My Galileo but there are many more). Once you remove the prose around the song's lyrical meaning (which violates WP:SONG and WP:OR) there is very little information contained in these articles that isn't included elsewhere, and that can't be covered in better detail and more holistically on these articles instead. As WP:NSONG states, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged[...]; you have provided zero evidence that the majority of the songs which were redirected fulfil this requirement, and until the material in question becomes available the redirects should remain in place. What happens on other versions of Wikipedia, whatever policies and guidance around articles on songs they may hold, is a matter for those versions. Additionally, just because an article exists on e.g. the French or Spanish Wikipedias does not mean it ought to have an article on the English Wikipedia if the notability guidelines are not fulfilled. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeating ivory tower positions doesn't make them more true. You were just picking examples of smaller stubs (who are still enough to keep them and expand them according to WP:STUB), but also much bigger stubs were redirected. You are ignoring the striking argument that ESC is a song contest and not only the overwhelming media coverage does make the songs notable, it is crystal clear that song articles should be the main focus and not information about artists and performances. And yes, it is always better to be constructive and add some references to existing articles (which most of them already had anyway!) than to destroy them and turn them into redirects. And you are completely wrong, there is in every of those cases enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article! There is enough literature and online sources about the songs of the ESC. What you did was making en:-WP worse. If this wrong concept is not rethought, it will take years to come to an acceptable result which will inform our readers about ESC songs in an appropriate way. The articles have to be restored.--Iconicos (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No one is stopping anyone from restoring these articles. If you want to make a contribution by reverting the redirects and adding to the articles in a constructive way, then go right ahead. However as I said previously, these articles need to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia and fulfil the notability and other guidance and policies on the English Wikipedia. Of course WP:STUB applies in this case, and stubs have a valid use within Wikipedia, however as said previously, there needs to be a concerted effort to maintain and add to these articles over time, and I had not seen anything like this for the majority of these articles for several years before the proposal to blank-and-redirect these articles was made. For the majority of these articles the information presented did not satisfy the WP:NSONG criteria around having enough material for a standalone article on this topic, especially since the majority of information (songwriters, position in the contest, selection method) was available on other articles. If you have an issue with any of the policies mentioned here, I suggest you take it up elsewhere as this is far beyond my remit, nor the remit of the WikiProject, or indeed any one Wikipedia editor. Policies, guidelines and other tools within Wikipedia are built around consensus; not one user decided to redirect these articles on a whim, it was through discussion with other Wikipedia and WikiProject editors that a decision was formed to proceed with this action. These actions can of course be reversed, however this also requires consensus, which I do not see you attempting to do in this case. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you seem to concede that there is a sense in these song articles. "Constructive" is a good word: it is not constructive to destroy the articles first and then let others work on them to get them restored. This is not how Wikipedia works or should work! As I said there are sources in most of them; maybe there are no references in some of the articles. But this is no reason to eliminate them. Repeat: There is by far enough material. I reserve the right to take further action on this topic. A consensus to do something wrong is a wrong consensus.--Iconicos (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading all of this, it seems to me that this is just another inclusionist vs mergist debate. Such debates have existed since the dawn of Wikipedia and I don't think it will find a resolution here. I also wouldn't say that there is consensus for either side; in the beginning no one opposed the mergers but since then a few people have. So this will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. So Iconicos, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, you are indeed completely free to restore articles you think are notable, and if others disagree it can be taken to AfD. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Jochem, that's right, and there is especially no consensus to delete hundreds of articles and worsen Wikipedia. I keep underlining this.--Iconicos (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding Eurovision results semi-automatically

You may have noticed that I was very quick with adding the results of the first semi-final to Wikipedia; that's because I have written a script to help me with that. All I have to do is enter the results as they are presented, and the wikitext is generated for me. I have also made such a script for the final, so that the voting tables are generated automatically. However, that will involve in total over a hundred edits, and I realise now that this would probably fall under bot-like editing, so I need to establish consensus before doing it. I can say that I have tested the script several times with data from previous contests, and that I am confident that it will work. The script has some error handling and it will also warn me if there are any inconsistencies in the data I enter (but during my most recent test I did not make any mistakes while filling in the results live).

The edits I am planning to make semi-automatically during the final are:

• Detailed voting results on Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (like 3 or 4 edits)
• "Points awarded by" tables (37 edits)
• "Points awarded to" tables (26 edits)
• Final results per country (26×2 edits)

The reason why I want to do this, is because in previous years it took a lot of time and effort to get all the results on Wikipedia. This way, our attention can be focussed on other important things, such as reverting vandalism (which will there will likely be in large volumns this week).

I would publish the source code of the program for transparency, but I am hesitant to do so because it contains some AutoWikiBrowser-like functionality without requiring AWB rights, and I'm worried people might abuse that. (Personally, I do have AWB rights.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Grk1011 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I forgot to change the year. I'm sorry for the disruption I caused, I will not do it again. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Article Format

[Original comment moved to 'Discussion' section of RfC below; length means that striking-through original would cause cause unnecessary clutter] A.D.Hope (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC); edited 11:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: I like that we've discussing changes to Eurovision article formatting, as the current structure clearly violates MOS:LEAD and WP:SS, and am surprised that project members aren't weighing in. Given that these issues reach back over a decade, I'd be in favor of opening a formal RfC to draw in both knowledgeable Eurovision fans + non-experts. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, since there doesn't seem to be any momentum at the moment. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies on Eurovision maps

Something I had noticed recently on our participation maps is that the Isle of Man ends up being shaded as part of the United Kingdom's participation each year. As the Isle of Man is a crown dependencyy, it is not actually a part of the UK, and therefore should be shaded grey every year. I do not have great SVG skills to be able to make this change, and looking at how to change it with the limited resources I have it's not so easy as it appears the Isle of Man shape is connected to the rest of the UK. Additionally, both Jersey and Guernsey are missing from the map, which although is not entirely relevant for Eurovision from a geographical perspective it would make sense to add these, in the same way that e.g. all of the Greek islands are included. Is there anyone within the WikiProject that would be able to help with this? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In case nobody does, there's always Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Blue Edits (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Separating the Isle of Man from the UK is easy, adding all the islands and general fixing the maps and then updating all those already on Wikipedia, now that's the hardest part. -- AxG / ✉  14:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well potentially Jersey and Guernsey might end up being too small to show up on the map properly anyway, so we could probably leave this. If splitting Isle of Man from the UK is a simple fix, even if someone could provide me the steps to do this I can then update the maps myself. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The BBC serves the Crown Dependencies, so in terms of EBU membership and participation in Eurovision should they not be treated identically to the UK? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest a couple of fixes first, these include: (see map too)

1. Obviously separate the Isle of Man from the UK
2. Added a number of Scottish islands in the Hebrides that were missing
3. Made Anglesey actually one blob, rather than two triangles.
4. Removed a slither of green from the Mersey.
5. Added the Isle of Wight.
6. Added the Channel Islands.
7. Fixed the positioning of Ibiza and Formentera in the Balearic Islands, which sat too close to Mallorca.

No doubt I missed some, so would be grateful for anyone else to suggest any fixes needed. -- AxG / ✉  17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that AxG! I was taking a bit of a more eagle-eyed view at our map, and I think there are a few more tweaks that would be beneficial and make it more accurate to real life.

• The Stockholm archipelago is currently shown as a big white mass
• There are some big lakes missing in Russia and Ukraine (the Rybinsk Reservoir, Lake Beloye, Kremenchuk Reservoir, Kakhovka Reservoir), as well as the various lakes in Finland (at least the big ones like Saimaa, Lake Päijänne and Lake Inari since there's probably too many to fit in here at this scale) and Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland; Mälaren and Hjälmaren are also currently absorbed as part of the Stockholm mass as described above
• Elba is also missing from the map just off the coast of Italy
• Potentially as well it would be worth including the West Frisian and East Frisian Islands off the coast of the Netherlands and Germany

There may be additional potential changes that I've also missed here. Also, is there an easy way to make these changes applicable to all maps? I'm mindful we have a lot of maps and because of the changes in borders throughout the years I don't want to open a can of worms here that will cause someone a lot of work. Potentially identifying a few files that would cover all the different variations of maps from 1956 onwards, the work on colour coding the countries can then be split up, thereby reducing the workload for one person. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

One additional point to make is a lot of this work around lakes and islands has already been done on other maps, e.g. the map included here on same-sex marriage in Europe, which potentially could be used as a basis for making the necessary changes on our maps while retaining our features such as the zoomed-in microstates. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the song contest infobox

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024 regarding provisional information in the infobox. The thread is Should the infobox contain information about Non-Returning, Returning and Debuting countries before the full list is announced?. Thank you. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Lack of info about winning songs in Eurovision articles

Hey folks, why do Eurovision 2022, 2021, 2019, and back to at least 2010 all have little to no information about the winning songs except for the article leads? (2018 and 2016 are exceptions only because of controversies.) Unless I'm missing something, that fundamentally contravenes MOS:LEAD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: I’m curious to know this as well. Probably due to some (mis)application of WP:CFORK or the article’s format discussed extensively below. Anyway, do we have any rules on discerning to what extent can a community consensus be lex specialis over existing rules? In the ITN discussion, you noted that the article’s standardised format violates WP:MoS, so this becomes a relevant question.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: The standardized format is fine, I believe—maybe even laudable! Wikipedia isn't very good about standardizing things. The problem is that this particular format leaves no room for the encyclopedic and necessary background info in the article body. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Viewing figures

I wanna start a discussion on revamping the viewing figures section of articles. Currently I see 2 issues:

• The first one is the fact that the boxes for no data and not broadcast are in the same color. For example:

Estimated viewership by country (in millions)

Country	Semi-final 1		Semi-final 2		Final		Ref(s)
	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership
Germany		0.59 (One)		0.62 (One)		0.51 (One)
	No broadcast of the semi-finals					7.45 (Das Erste)

instead, we could color the boxes indicating a missing broadcast red:

Estimated viewership by country (in millions)

Country	Semi-final 1		Semi-final 2		Final		Ref(s)
	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership
Germany		0.59 (One)		0.62 (One)		0.51 (One)
	No broadcast of the semi-finals					7.45 (Das Erste)

• The second issue is the fact that some broadcasters might put different shows on different channels, creating a distorted image of viewership in countries. For example:

Estimated viewership by country (in millions)

Country	Semi-final 1		Semi-final 2		Final		Ref(s)
	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership
Serbia	0.5	0.227		0.149	2	0.674

omits the data that RTS had their broadcasts for semis on their tertiary channel, giving skewed data in a way. My second suggestion would be to create an additional row displaying the channel a show was broadcast on:

Estimated viewership by country (in millions)

Country	Channel	Semi-final 1		Semi-final 2		Final		Ref(s)
		Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership
Serbia	RTS 3	0.5	0.227		0.149	No broadcast of the final
	RTS 1	No broadcast of the semi-finals				2	0.674

---

Combining these two solutions produces a table as such:

  Data not available

  No broadcast

Estimated viewership by country (in millions)

Country	Channel	Semi-final 1		Semi-final 2		Final		Ref(s)
		Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership	Viewership	Average viewership
Chile	Canal 13	No broadcast of the semi-finals					0.073
Germany	One		0.59		0.62		0.51
	Das Erste	No broadcast of the semi-finals					7.45
Serbia	RTS 3	0.5	0.227		0.149	No broadcast of the final
	RTS 1	No broadcast of the semi-finals				2	0.674

There might also be a discussion about removing the viewership column from the tables completely, as that data is rarely available, and when it is, leaving it as a note. Producing:

  Data not available

  No broadcast

Estimated viewership by country (in millions)

Country	Channel	Semi-final 1	Semi-final 2	Final	Ref(s)
		Average viewership	Average viewership	Average viewership
Chile	Canal 13	No broadcast of the semi-finals		0.073
Germany	One	0.59	0.62	0.51
	Das Erste	No broadcast of the semi-finals		7.45
Serbia	RTS 3	0.227	0.149	No broadcast of the final
	RTS 1	No broadcast of the semi-finals		0.674

Thoughts? ImStevan (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for conducting this analysis and raising this issue. I think there's probably a wider conversation needed around the inclusion of these tables in the yearly contest articles in general, as I wonder if this data is better placed to be kept solely within the individual country articles. Although I can see the merits of having this information within these articles as well from a like-for-like comparison across countries, the analysis above does show that the current presentation method is somewhat inadequate and requires considerable work to make it completely transparent for the reader. The issue I have is particularly around the gaps in data, e.g. in the 2022 contest figures some countries only provide data for certain shows or there are different methods available to show how these are counted (total viewership vs. average viewership) with one or the other not always available. Because of this, I tend towards believing it's more apt to keep the individual country figures in those respective articles and to forget about trying to present a combined view. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: I disagree, data on viewership of the contest by country should be presented on the main article, just like broadcasts are. Perhaps it's also an option to create 3 different tables that combine broadcasts and viewership into one table per show, as follows:

Broadcasters, commentators and viewership (in millions) of the final

Country	Channel	Commentator(s)	Average viewership	Ref(s)
Chile	Canal 13	Sergio Lagos and Rayén Araya	0.073
Germany	One	Peter Urban	0.51
	Das Erste		7.45
Serbia	RTS 1	Duška Vučinić	0.674

instead of having a huge table for the entire viewership across the 3 shows, and a separate huge table for broadcasts of all 3 shows. This way there would be no need to have "Didn't broadcast X" appear anywhere, as those countries and channels would just be omitted from the table of the show they didn't broadcast. ImStevan (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I fear though with this solution we would go from two sizeable tables to one absolutely massive and completely unmaneagable one. The problem with trying to combine the regular broadcast table with the viewer numbers if that then for many countries instead of having one row with the broadcaster, channel and commentators where the same channel was the broadcaster for all shows in that country, we would then have to split these out into three rows for each show, which means that immediately this table would almost double/triple in size depending on the countries included. We also then have an issue where viewership data isn't available for some countries; there are nine countries in the current broadcasts table that aren't included in viewership table, and so trying to combine these two tables would also create a lot of blank cells for these countries as well as the gaps in data for countries already included within both tables. From a consistency point of view, as I think about the ongoing RfC discussion, changing the table in one article would require we replicate this across the article series, and for many countries this information is not available especially for older broadcasts. This would lead to a large increase in the number of blank cells within these tables, which I don't believe would be very useful to many readers. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: No, I said we can instead of 2 huge tables, have 3 smaller ones, that depict info per show, mostly eliminating blank cells ImStevan (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, I understand you now. My problem with this is that this would cause a lot of duplication of names across the different tables, as in the majority of countries the same commentary team is present for all three shows. Particularly for the semi-finals the large majority of countries (although not all) also broadcast the contest on the same channel for both the first and second semi-final, so these two tables would be particularly duplication-heavy. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find these helpful in the article at all. WP:NOTSTATS recommends this type of information to be in table form (which it is), but it is not paired with any sort of context to help the reader understand why and how it's relevant for each country. The average viewership in Chile for the final was "0.073". Is that a lot? A little? More compared to the past? Disappointingly low? Are we meant to sort the list to compare countries to each other? Additionally, viewer numbers should ideally be shown alongside ratings (as a percentage of viewing public), as totals don't tell us much since the population of each country is different. Sims2aholic8 has recommended the information be included on the individual country pages; I agree. There it can be explained within the context of the country's participation. We're having a discussion just above this right now about how there are too many tables of information and it's overwhelming. If there is anything to cut, this seems ripe to me. Grk1011 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: We could use EurovisionWorld's stats on viewing figures to depict the change as compared to the previous year ImStevan (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Would this not bring up issues when comparing different years as there may not be a like-for-like comparison for some countries? Different shows are occasionally shown on different channels in different countries, and this can change year on year, e.g. the semi-finals in the UK this year were broadcast on BBC One instead of BBC Three, and given the UK hosting there will be a large upswing in viewership in 2023 compared with 2022, while likewise last year all shows were shown on Rai Uno in Italy whereas this year the semi-finals were shown on Rai Due. It would be very difficult to accurately convey the nuances of each country's broadcasts compared with past years within the table formats proposed, or in any table format for that matter, without it becoming overwhelmingly large and convoluted. Prose is a much more amenable form for this type of information, and the different aspects can be more better represented in this manner, which is why I have proposed scrapping these tables from these articles entirely and moving any lost data into the country articles. As per the RfC above, I do believe some high level figures are suitable for this article, e.g. total number of viewers on public service media, YouTube and TikTok streams, any countries with a very high percentage of total audience, and could be placed either within the Broadcasts section or a new "Reactions/Aftermath" section as proposed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As an example of how I believe this information can be better presented in the "country by year" articles, I've done a write-up in Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023. As you can see, with prose you can easily convey the information that is presented in the table but also provide additional commentary that you can't when in the current data-table format (market share, best viewership since 2016, all-time high for young age groups). As Grk1011 points out, in the current format there's very little awareness presented around how successful or not the contest might be when viewership is presented with just pure numbers, and any kind of comparison or analysis you could make based on this is diminuished without context. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I had been adding that sort of information into the country articles as available over the years (example). I don't think it adds value to the main contest page. General viewership, yes, but I don't find individual country's information relevant. It feels very WP:UNDUE. Grk1011 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes

12 points

I'm amazed that editors are giving serious consideration to removing the 12 points summary tables. The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide information in an easy to understand manner. Summary tables do exactly that. Prose becomes very difficult to phrase, summarise, and read, particularly if English is not the reader's first language.

I get the impression that editors are looking for anything to do to make themselves feel busy. doktorb _words^deeds 03:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You basically summed it up. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I can see both sides to the argument for and against their inclusion. Clearly there's no consensus on their removal, even within the RfC, so I've reintroduced the tables to the 2023 article, and hopefully with the inclusion of more prose to counterbalance the tables this should be a good compromise for everyone. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)