Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 32

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Sims2aholic8 in topic Qualification tables during relegation era
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

Languages within participants tables

Latest comment: 7 months ago71 comments10 people in discussion

I'd like to open a discussion with WikiProject members about the best way to approach the language columns. More often than not these are partially or wholly unsourced, which breaks WP:VERIFY, and often leads to edit warring behaviour about what languages are included in a song, how this should be presented, when to use a footnote or not etc. As has been raised previously, in many ways the language in which a song is performed is just one aspect of that song, and in some ways beyond just being a legacy aspect of these tables the reasonings behind its inclusion is somewhat lacking. I'd like to agree consensus on how best to approach these columns going forward, when they should be included, what articles they should be included on, and ultimately I believe a conversation about whether there is justification for this column at all is needed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If we cut anything else from the tables we'll have nothing left. I know there's a lot of "Wikipedia purity" good around at the moment, but having lost the translated titles, and then the language, from the annual articles, I'm not sure how much more we can trim. Sometimes I look on other languages' equivalent pages and wonder why ours has become so barren and clinical- are we not allowed to give readers facts for the sake of facts? This song was in English, this in French, this in Latvian, happy days: what more are you after deleting? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Translated titles were a clear WP:OR violation for one. And additionally I've pushed to add songwriter credits to these tables, which I think is a lot more relevant to the song than what language it's performed in. I'm not saying that there isn't a need for a language column, all I'm saying is that it is so difficult to find relevant references that we can use consistently every year and there is always questions and comments and edit wars about these columns that I'm wondering if it would be just easier to scrap it altogether, which I'm not sure is the way to go either but I'm just trying to talk about the issues at hand and what we can do about it from all angles. Just now I had to reply to a user about the languages listed on the Sammarinese entry, and there's always something going on which takes up editors' time and effort. I personally don't want to scrap the language columns but we have had a difficult time as a project to find a way to consistently apply rules to these listings in the past, which is a problem when you want to bring articles up for GA status, where sourcing of this column almost always comes up. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Definetely don't remove the language from the tables. I really think people will be hugely dissatisfied if we can't even inform about the language.
However I think, that a discussion of whether language should once again be included in the semi final and grand finals table is in its place. Thomediter (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I definitely believe that keeping the language column only in the participants table is the way to go. It removes duplication, makes those tables more condensed and easier to read when you add in points information, and is consistent with how tables are laid out on other Eurovision-related articles, e.g. country-by-year articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd prefer we remove the language column and agree that it is difficult to find sources for it. I see daily the discussions about the footnotes and one of the red flags is that there should be no discussion about what the footnote says or "how many words in another language are required". We don't get to make that determination—only the sources can—and routinely no sources are provided. A link to the lyrics is not sufficient as it does not say "Language: English, with 3 words in Spanish". Common sense might win some over, but there are lot of overlapping words in languages and it cannot be on the editor to decide "well it's x country's entry, so it's probably x language". Aside from sourcing, there are so many aspects of songs that make them unique: genre, instruments, theme, etc. Language is just one and at least for me, it is irrelevant to whether I'd find the song competitive or not. Omitting the language column reduces clutter and helps focus on the facts. I'm not saying "hide" the language, but there are many other places where I find it more appropriate (participation page, song page). Grk1011 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I think a lot of people rely on wikipedia for details on the contest, and I believe that the language is such an important and interesting piece of information, that we would be very wrong if we ended up not having it on here. I can't link to any fancy WP:, but the general feel for me is that language is one of the most discussed things for Eurovision fans, and the information is so standard and basic that I think it's much better if we try to find a way to keep it. I mean, there is just something strange about that we can inform readers of songwriters and brodcasters, but not even language.
One option is to change it to main language, although I'm not a fan of this solution it's not as bad as removing it all together. Thomediter (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand that language is one of those intriguing aspects of Eurovision entries, hence why it has persisted as a column for so long. I'm just getting frustrated at the regular edit warring and constant discussions we all have as editors when it comes to what language a song is in. I can see why this column is relevant, and personally I would support this column's inclusion, but I also recognise how it is constantly a violation of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia is built off of references, and as Grk1011 mentioned, linking to the lyrics isn't gonna cut it when it doesn't actually state what the language is. With regards to your point around the songwriters and broadcasters, Eurovision is a competition of broadcasters, so that's obviously pertinent information for the participants table, and given it's a song contest I believe the songwriters are just as relevant for inclusion in these tables as the performers. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It's also helpful to remember that our audience is not Eurovision fans and there are places (dedicated wikis, standalone websites etc. (thinking that 50webs site)) where fans can write whatever they want about the contest and go into excruciating detail about a plethora of fun facts and metrics. The purpose of this encyclopedia though is to spread knowledge of the event to folks who may be unfamiliar with it. We're tasked with outlining the story, but not every single detail about it. Grk1011 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Language is still such a basic thing that I guarantee that some who are unfamiliar with the contest would be interested in. Thomediter (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not about what's interesting; it's about what's critical and more importantly, what sources exist for. Grk1011 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
It's still a bad idea. The language(s) a song is in is a very important piece of information, and I was already quite annoyed/frustrated at the decision to take out which years countries chose internally or through nat'l finals in each "COUNTRY in the Eurovision Song Contest" article. Removing the language column entirely won't do any good; it'll just provide a lot less information and make Wikipedia a lot less of a go-to place for important Eurovision statistics. Brobbz (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The main problem with what you're describing is that that is not what the purpose of Wikipedia is supposed to be. It's stated clearly within Wikipedia's policies that it is not a place for excessive listings of unexplained statistics without any context. I'm not concerned about whether Wikipedia is the "go-to" for Eurovision stats or news, because that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to be an encyclopaedia and provide relevant knowledge on the subject that is properly sourced and verified and gives relevant context to the reader. I just don't see how this language column does that. Yes put the language in the individual song articles, put references to the winning song's language in prose on the ESC articles if it's relevant (e.g. Portugal 2017 or Italy 2021), but does listing whether a certain country's entry being in this language or that in a given year really provide relevant information on the contest in its proper context to the reader? I'm not convinced. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it does, it gives a very good overview of how countries approach the contest in different ways. Thomediter (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I can certainly accept that viewpoint, however if you're approaching it from that POV then I believe that that information should be covered as part of each country's individual articles. My point around context still stands because how a country approaches the contest from a language POV can never be covered in sufficient detail on the articles for an individual edition, given that that article covers only the contest itself. This is why we have articles for each country's history and, where relevant and enough content is available, on the country-by-year articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Either way, what good would removing that information do aside from making it slightly less cluttered? Having the same information relayed in different articles is very common in Wikipedia pages about similar topics. And it isn't even necessarily repetitive, as the way it currently is, the languages used by each country each year are only mentioned once. Not twice like it used to be. Your point doesn't stand in my opinion because that makes it more difficult to compare which languages were used in a particular year. And it doesn't really matter that an individual country's POV about language can't sufficiently be covered in an articles about individual Eurovisions. That isn't the point of putting the language there anyway. It's to provide relevant context about the song. The language(s) a song is sung in is/are just as important to the song's identity as its title. Brobbz (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The main point for potentially removing this information, which was why I initiated this discussion to begin with, was to make all the articles compliant with WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Like Grk1011 I will say that without all the footnotes about tiny fragments of language it is a big improvement, but when you look at this and compare it to Wikipedia policy, not only around original research and verifiability but also policies on Wikipedia's purpose and content, I still have concerns. Clearly concerns that are falling on deaf ears here, even though they're about core Wikipedia policy and not just some preference I have. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Thomediter: It is definitely interesting and we're all fans here, remember! I will admit that I've warmed to the now-simplified language column (no footnotes). But the meat of this discussion is really whether there is a policy-based reason for inclusion, and so far, it's not looking good. First and foremost, the discussion about it in reliable independent sources is basically non-existent. I'm not talking about languages in general, but for each particular song, the importance of "two words in English" and the like. We can't decide on our own whether that's significant. Grk1011 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
There are all sorts of things that can be interesting to different groups of people which we don't list. Genre, number of people on stage, different types of performers on stage, length of the song, colour scheme, use of pyrotechnics, whether there's a dance break or not, to name but a few. Why should language of the song be treated any differently, and especially when we don't have reliable sources? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe language is an arguably relevant aspect in an international contest with many countries involved, especially considering there have been regulation changes over the history of the contest specifically concerning it. And contrarily to some of the aspects you listed here, the lyrics are an intrinsic part of the competing entry itself rather than the way it is performed. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Taking that point on, cause I can definitely see what you're saying, in retaining this column how do we resolve the issues around WP:VERIFY and WP:OR that are impacted by having a column with largely unsourced language information? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I admit this is a bit tricky, especially when there are single lines/words in other languages, as far as WP:OR is concerned. But I don’t know if at least for the main language referencing the lyrics themselves can really be considered original research. What I mean is: let’s take, say, "La noia" which features the debated total – since the spelling matches a word existing in multiple languages, I understand it is not our place to say that Mango pronounces it in Spanish so it must be in Spanish; but all the sentences in the song are clearly in Italian and that can be easily checked in various ways. It might be a WP:SYNTH issue but again, as long as full phrases are usually easy to verify as being in a certain language, pointing to the lyrics should be enough IMO. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I don't understand where the need to quantify words in other languages came from and why the footnote thing started (it's not a long-standing practice). These two items are the real problem because they are both determined solely by editors. In your case, I would be fine with the lyrics referencing Italian and that only (plenty of sources for this). For songs that do have substantial amounts of other languages (people like to talk about that!), I would think there to be enough independent reliable sources around to back them up too. The problem is just that in all honesty, very few people care that a song contains "two words in English" and that's reflected in the lack of discussion about it in sources. Grk1011 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Especially in recent years when the official website publishes the lyrics for all the entries these do also generally list the language according to the national broadcasters that submit the entries, at least for entries that aren't in English, so I would have no problem with having the columns if we use that the reference, however it's not followed consistently and there are cases where when lyrics are published they don't have the language(s) listed. Grk1011 raises a good point about these footnotes though, as they do just seem to have popped up out of nowhere and really aren't justified in my opinion, alongside there being no consensus for their inclusion. Regardless of what we do with these columns I do think we should remove the footnotes, as 99% of the time they are totally unreferenced, and will begin doing so shortly. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Grk1011 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the language of the song isn't an important aspect in the right context. It would certainly be relevant on the article about the song itself if properly sourced, along with many of the other facets which I listed. However I'm not convinced with all the facts available to us that we should have language presented to the reader in this way. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to weigh in here but I appreciate as a newer member my take is going to have little to no weight, and I'm not trying to be rude but am having a hard time understanding the thought processes here. I get that wikipedia has standards but at the end of the day for something as small as this, a simple footnote to give a bit more information that someone might find interesting it shouldn't be this deep. That's how it was done previously and there was no problems it just seems like things are being removed for the sake of removal and that seems a bit strange. Another point is that there is an entire page dedicated to languages in the contest including the smaller 'lines of' that were previously put in the footnotes so how come those ones haven't been touched? (List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest) A Mallard Duck (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in! I think part of it is that it's only become common during the last few contests and ultimately while it's interesting, it really isn't that significant. The latter issue is really the part that presents the concern: if what was in the footnotes was significant, then there should be no difficulty finding sources that discuss the significance (yet we haven't found any). I don't find the languages article very compelling as it barely has any references to back up the information. At this point in the conversation, I believe there is consensus to keep the language column (which was initially requested to be removed) and we are still unclear about the footnotes given the lack of sources. Of course there are many interesting things about the contest, but these articles are targeting the general public, not fans, so naturally they will be a bit more focused. Grk1011 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd also like to thank you for contributing! I think everyone deserves to have a voice in this WikiProject, so just because you're new doesn't mean your points aren't worth considering! I would tend to concur with Grk1011, I think the consensus has been to retain the language columns with the main language(s), but I also fail to see how adding in several footnotes to mention one or two words or phrases in different languages is relevant, especially when it's unsourced. Does it really add value to the reader to state that a song has one word in a given language, especially when there are many interpretations about whether it's in that language or another? I think principally about the original footnote for this year's Italian entry, which listed English and Spanish in the song but looking into it it's a lot more complicated than that. Many languages have loanwords from other languages and they can sometimes take on a completely different meaning to the original language, and some words are identical in many different languages, and it's this context which is missing when using footnotes and which we will never be able to cover properly on these articles anyway. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

One additional point which just came to mind is the way we approach the varieties of Serbo-Croatian. At the moment it's really all over the place in how these are listed, especially since they're all the same language but how they're listed is approached differently depending on the individuals involved in the song. This is particularly notable with the entries from Bosnia and Herzegovina which essentially just comes down to which ethnic group the performer belongs, even if the songwriters are from a different group, which screams of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For Yugoslav entries we list them all as Serbo-Croatian even though the limited references we do have available (i.e. the now-defunct Diggiloo Thrush) list them as the different varieties (Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin), again mainly based I believe on nationality and ethnicity and not from what I can see is any particular insight on the songs or songwriters, which is again another OR issue. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. In these cases I believe we should just list it as Serbo-Croatian to avoid confusion and inconsistency, possibly adding a note only when the variety used is clearly referenced. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean to list the language used in all entries from Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina which are in a variety of Serbo-Croatian as "Serbo-Croatian"? Because I can guarantee you that would not end well. I think we would get way too many angry comments from individuals with a more nationalistic bent that they are different languages etc. and I really do not think we want to open that Pandora's box. Also I think it's a bit disingenuous and almost clinical to use that term when in real life no one refers to Croatian or Serbian as "Serbo-Croatian". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I can totally see a negative response, but we’re not supposed to cater to people’s feelings at the expense of what may be best for the project, are we? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes but we're also not supposed to be the judge of what language is used in a song either, especially when it could be controversial. Everything needs to be sourced, including the languages that are used in the songs. Sometimes it's very easy to tell, sometimes it's really not, but it's not incumbent on us as Wikipedia editors to make a judgement about the differences. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course not. I just meant that someone’s reaction based on their feelings on the matter shouldn’t be a determining factor in our choices. While I understand other reasons why we could keep sticking to the names of national varieties – such as the one you mentioned above. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think what Sims is trying to say (and I agree) isn't that we need to worry about negative response in general, but moreseo reactions that come as a result of editor preference vs backed by reliable sources. Grk1011 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh I also agree on this. I mean, I simply made a proposal that would have the listed entries more consistent cross-article, but I obviously also want to avoid stirring any dissatisfaction. that’s why I said we could have “Serbo-Croatian” while still adding the more specific variety when sourced. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Despite the negative reactions, I agree that they should be listed as Serbo-Croatian. A great example is Martina Vrbos at PzE24 this year: Her song for all intends and purposes could be in any of the 4 variations, but it's listed as Croatian simply because in interviews she speaks Croatian (using some words unique to Croatian) and is Croatian herself. I'd say that's WP:SYNTH
A few points on this: first, us deciding to list an entry as Serbo-Croatian, even when there are sources that state it is in Serbian or Croatian, would border on editorialising in my opining, so clearly an OR violation, which similarly also applies for the Yugoslav entries which atm are listed as such without proper sourcing; seconding, even if there is an agreement on language columns on Eurovision articles, NF articles are a completely different kettle of fish, because these are almost always unsourced to an even greater degree compared to the main Eurovision articles, so taking that I should think language columns have no place on those articles unless fully sourced and verifiable. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: EurovisionWorld has all national final and Eurovision songs in their database and each one has the song's language(s) listed, so linking to the EurovisionWorld page for a national final or a contest should be a good enough of a source; after all, it is considered a reliable source — IмSтevan talk 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that's a great idea Brobbz (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking the same. Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
That's certainly one potential solution. It's not perfect, as taking a quick look as especially the national selections pages there are a lot of missing lyrics, or where there are lyrics when there isn't a translation the language isn't listed, but from an ESC articles perspective this could work. It also lists the Yugoslav entries under the different varieties of Serbo-Croatian, rather than Serbo-Croatian itself, which is a bit of a historical inaccuracy given how SFR Yugoslavia treated the language at the time, but I can also live with that.
One problem I find with using EurovisionWorld however is not necessarily around the language used, but is around other aspects of the website which I believe violates WP:CIRCULAR. I don't doubt the veracity of the languages listed on the website, but other contents on the same page further down, specifically spokespersons and commentators, I believe very strongly that these have been lifted directly from Wikipedia. I spent a long time tidying up those sections on these articles, and the listings on EurovisionWorld are identical, the problem being that I know for a fact that some of the listings that came from Wikipedia were completely false. I'm not sure if we can use one portion of a web page and state that this is reliable but that other parts are not. Would love to hear more thoughts on this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
One additional point around the NF listings as well, particularly those from the early years of the contest, I also feel that this may be a CIRCULAR violation, or even a WP:UGC given that these are also most likely lift-and-shift operations from other fan sites (particularly thinking of that 50webs site). As an example, their listing for the 1956 German NF goes directly against what the German broadcast even believes on that, which is that there may not have been one at all (see here), although going by the very reliably sourced Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 1956 article it does appear that there was one, but the competing artists is disputed. I will state that in some aspects I believe EurovisionWorld to be reliable, but in others I highly doubt its reliability, so how we approach using this website, especially as a source for non-contemporary contests, is a big question that I have. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
EurovisionWorld has been assessed as a WP:RS for its news articles as those appear to meet the criteria, but its database does not show any signs of editorial oversight or evidence of its ultimate source(s). I think we can all imagine a scenario where a news site reporter (in this case also a fan) writes an article about a current event using high quality sources, but also at the same time copy and pastes history for things 50 years ago with the assumption 'well someone else likely did the legwork already'. Grk1011 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a very good summary of the situation! While I certainly feel that we are in a good position with using EurovisionWorld's news articles in sources, I would strongly object to using their history database for participation tables in Eurovision articles, including national final articles, for exactly the specific points that Grk1011 raised. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Do we consider diggiloo.net to be a reliable source? It explicitly states the language for each entry up to 2013.
Among the books about ESC history, only Roland Weissbarth's Ein Lied für Europa (ISBN 978-1-5470-1897-0, Worldcat) has language columns but it looks as if it was copied from somewhere else (possibly Wikipedia). EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I have been relying on Diggiloo for these language columns for any articles I've pushed up to GA, and it's been a legacy resource for the WikiProject which is generally considered reliable for the languages column. Similarly to what I stated above however there is the issue with how to list the different languages of Yugoslav entries when politically there was only one Serbo-Croatian language, given that Diggiloo lists these as the different varieties. From 2014 onwards we have nothing else to replace Diggiloo with, hence the quandary. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue their database is also very reliable, but maybe it's just me — IмSтevan talk 10:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking into it further there is literally an edit button on each page, and it appears that users can either suggest edits or make edits directly (I'm not sure how it works, didn't want to test it and make a mess). This immediately brings up concerns around WP:UGC and how reliable anything within these databases is, especially if the original basis for much of the information is from Wikipedia itself. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It suggests an edit and they can reject or approve it — IмSтevan talk 10:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I get that but I see nothing within the dialogue box or elsewhere on their website to reassure me that they care at all if it's accurate or not. The "source" box within the edit request box is completely optional. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It'd certainly be possible to find a source for each individual song, but we'd be talking some 40 sources each year. Is reaching out to an outlet considered a reliable source and just asking them to write an article an option? — IмSтevan talk 10:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
We currently do include sources for language when articles are reviewed for higher classifications: San_Marino_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest. We have no other choice if we want the information to be in the article. Reaching out to a news outlet would be a conflict of interest. If the information isn't out there and published by a trustworthy source, then we'll just have to leave that cell blank; it is what is it. Grk1011 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Or leave it in, use EurovisionWorld as a source and note that a better source is needed — IмSтevan talk 23:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Is that a policy-based suggestion? If Eurovisionworld is an unreliable source, then this seems inappropriate. Grk1011 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
EurovisionWorld is listed as reliable, I don't see the issue — IмSтevan talk 17:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Going by the listing it was added as a reliable source in January 2015; the site at that point in time did not have any of the database aspects which are now a big part of it. Yes it had some aspects which were more around points information, betting odds etc. but I would say the principle reason it was listed as a reliable source is for its news coverage and not those aspects of the site, which I believe is still the case in 2024. It's important to note that just because a site was once deemed reliable doesn't mean it always will be, we've seen in recent cases where sites which used to be a reliable source of Eurovision knowledge changed ownership and either decided to drop Eurovision entirely or became pure clickbait and completely unreliable. I'm not saying that's the case with EurovisionWorld, I'm just saying that "it's listed as reliable" shouldn't be the entire basis for using it as a source in this specific case. It's important we take a look at everything going on with the website to determine whether this source is reliable for this particular situation, and I have concerns about using it for this purpose. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand that your suggestion is coming from a positive place of trying to streamline the process, however it sounds very sketchy to me that we should be contemplating almost "gaming" Wikipedia's policies to make the sourcing and verifiability policies work for us. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to "make" sources that can be used within articles, or to ask others to do so on our behalf. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I see most of the discussion regarding footnotes here is about the use of words, loanwords, policy, whether a language is called 'Serbo-Croatian', etc. However, we are talking about songs here. We need to talk about lines, verses, chorus, etc.

I'd like to suggest to re-instate the use of footnotes for songs that contain entire line(s) in another language.

If a song contains more than one verse in another language. It should be listed as bilingual and does not warrant a footnote.
If a song contains words, loanwords, or phrases in another language. It does not need a footnote and only the main language should be listed. --Tonyb1989 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I have had similar thoughts lately. While we can do without footnotes for single words and phrases, when entire lines (however few) are in a different language, the lack of a note may be perceived as incompleteness. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The problem with what you're proposing is that it relies heavily upon original research. Without reliable sources to back up any language claim and provide verifiability we are breaking Wikipedia policy. It's not our decision to make up rules to establish whether this song is in this language because we hear it and associate these words with this language. We had this exact problem with Italy before, because the word "total" is used in a number of different languages, it could be Spanish, French, a contraction of Italian, German even. Some editor believed it was Spanish based on her pronunciation within the song, and probably drawing some conclusions as well, but there was no actual proof provided to back that up. It's very obvious in some cases that a song is in a given language, but almost always this comes with OR issues because editors do not properly source this column. Several editors have brought many articles up to Good Article status, and generally in my experience the sourcing of the language column has been a source of some contention because of its sourcing. Editors have had to add individual sources for each line entry on some articles, e.g. Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest and San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest, to cover the various different languages used. I have found it very difficult, especially for more recent editions of the contest, to find reliable sourcing to cover the languages of all entries in a given year or a given country; this is why this discussion was opened originally, as the original proposal was to scrap this column entirely (which I still support).
As has been opined above, why as editors are we so focussed on this particular aspect of the song? We don't have columns here for genre, or stage director, or any other number of aspects of the song, artist or Eurovision performance. These are rightly covered in other articles, such as the individual country articles or the articles on the songs themselves, where the information presented is provided in a much better context. I believe that the song's language can be covered much better in this way rather than through the manner that it is conducted in now, which gives zero context to the reader and keeps leading to this bickering around "is this song in this language?" or "how to we cram as much information into a footnote as possible?" without considering if it's in the best interest of the reader. I don't know how saying that this song has two words in French when the rest is in English, or that this song has this repeated sentence in another language, is really that useful to most people reading the article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I completely understand this, but after 20 years of people visiting Wikipedia and expecting to find every song's language in an article, it'd not be in our nor the readers' best interest to remove them. — IмSтevan talk 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The same argument could have been made for a number of different aspects of these articles. Previously translations of non-English titles were very common on our articles, but these were removed for the very same reasons that I explained above, specifically they were WP:OR violations. Honestly I don't find "this is how it's always been/been for so long" to be a particularly valid argument. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sims2aholic8 in the sense that, basically, there are only two options: either to source all language cells individually (which seems very hard, you said) or to drop the language column completely.
However, I disagree in the sense that the language column is more or less an arbitrary inclusion like genre or stage director. Languages have always played an important role in the history of Eurovision and have been subject to debate and rule changes. My personal feeling is that information about the language of a song enriches the article but that can only happen if it is properly sourced. The consequence, in my opinion, is that everything that is not sourced has to be deleted for the moment, until a proper source is found.
Similar to the commentators' column in the broadcasters and commentators table for the early years of the contest, this will lead to some ESC-year-articles having a language column with many empty cells for some time.
The question we as editors have to ask ourselves is:
1) Do we think that sourcing the language of a song at least for the great majority of cells for each year is realistic if one keeps digging long enough?
2) Do we think the language column is relevant enough with respect to the hard work that has to be done?
3) Do we actually want to do that work?
If there is no clear consensus among us editors for the first question, an idea which came to my mind is to reach a consensus by trying together to source the languages of the 2024 participants table. If we don't succeed to source the vast majority the language cells within a month, it should be clear that the column has to go. If we succeed, this can lead us to consider sourcing all years where this has to be done.
P.S: For a start, here's a ref for Luxembourg, and here for Armenia. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that we should remove the column entirely if there isn’t a single source specifying for each entry “this is X language” because that is basically impossible and I think it can hardly be considered OR to say what is the main language when the lyrics are published everywhere. The issue arose around secondary languages and I believe that should be our focus. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
For contests pre-2013 Diggiloo Thrush had previously been used as a reliable source for these language columns, and is one which I have continued to use for articles when bringing them up for GA. Whether that reliability is warranted however is another question, particularly given the website is now deprecated. As per your point Ivan, the suggestion wouldn't be right now to remove the column over a missing ref, it would just be to blank the cell until a source could be found. Personally though I feel that this would cause a massive mess, and probably a large deal of acrimony and edit warring behaviour from editors as the changes are likely to be reverted constantly. Additionally, I would point out that using lyrics to draw a conclusion about the language of a song when it's not actually spelt out in the source that this song is in this language would be in my opinion a WP:SYNTH issue.
The problem with some of the referencing issues I can imagine would lie especially with some of the English-language songs, particularly for the likes of the UK, Ireland and Malta songs. Unless these songs have undergone a language change it will probably prove difficult to find references, at least ones in English, that state a song is in English because it is self-evident to English speakers; however the same could be said for any language I suppose.
I totally sympathise with the arguments around the importance of the language of the songs at Eurovision – obviously it's been something of great interest to lots of fans and people interested in the contest, including myself – I guess I'm just trying to realistic and pragmatic here about the number of policy violations these columns bring up, the scale of work to fix it, and also if we do decide to retain it how best to present the information, e.g. should we do the same as the broadcasts tables and add a Ref column to support all references for these acts, and if so should we then add other references like the individual participants pages on the official website (which do cover the languages in some cases, but not consistently enough that we can rely on this). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I totally get your points and I truly appreciate the effort you are putting in this. It’s just very frustrating that there isn’t a clear line on to which extent the SYNTH and OR policies apply to cases like this; because, as you were mentioning, forcing ourselves to have very specific sourcing can reach the absurd heights of omitting that English-language songs are in English on the English Wikipedia. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I've added individual references to each line of the participants table of the 2024 contest. In every case the language has been listed, however there are three instances where our table and the official language listed differ: on Australia the site states that the song is in "Anangu language", but also states that is it specifically in Yankunytjatjara within the bio; and for San Marino and Ukraine in both instances the official website lists English as one of the songs' languages. Thoughts on the new layout and on in particular the Sammarinese and Ukrainian language discrepancies? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I would just add English when talking about Ukraine and San Marino, at least we have references. As for Australia, yeah the article does say explicitly it's Yankunytjatjara so it's fine — IмSтevan talk 15:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Wow, great job! We still have discrepancy with some entries lacking the secondary language and some not, but thanks for providing all these refs. I second Stevan as for Ukraine and San Marino. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I get that it is somewhat inconsistent in the way they approach the languages, which I'm assuming is down to what was submitted by the broadcasters to the EBU, but at least it's consistent in another way in that all languages are from the same source. It's an imperfect system but it's at least a system that seems to work, at least for 2024. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Latvian flag

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When looking at Eurovision pages, the flag of Latvia is not displayed next to the country’s name. Check here, for example. Is this a known bug with the template? I’m not quite sure what’s up with it, but I haven’t seen any discussion.

Purpley24 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems this was because of some slight shenanigans at Template:Country data Latvia with a new version being uploaded and then deleted. It's been resolved now though. (If it hasn't, that means the cache hasn't been updated yet; a purge should fix it.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Argo discussion

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, just a reminder to be checking the article alerts page frequently. There is a currently an article that is proposed to be redirected and not many folks have weighed in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argo (band). Grk1011 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Maps (again)

Latest comment: 7 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Well there we go, to avoid jumping all over the place, I created an evolution of Eurovision event maps since 1956 till 2024, including all border changes and artifical lake creations. This should be one of if not the final map discussion we have. Thoughts? Eurovision Song Contest-specific maps

Junior Eurovision Song Contest-specific maps

— IмSтevan talk 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again thanks for all your work on the maps, Stevan. Aren’t a few year-by-year updates missing though? E.g. the 2003–2006 map has Armenia in dark gray but the country had yet to debut 2003–2005. I also noticed Ireland is marked on the 1963–1964 map despite debuting only in 1965. There might be other inaccuracies, but it’s totally understandable given how many changes need to be paid attention. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The maps mostly focus on changes in borders and geographical features, the colors can be updated in proper year by year articles, that's why Armenia is grey, since it debuted in that period. I'll fix Ireland, it accidentally stayed colored cuz I split the 1963–1964 map off a different one — IмSтevan talk 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much again for all your work with this! They look really great! One question I had was around the split between 2015-2018 and 2019-present; apart from a name change, are there any geographical changes to the map that would require a separate template? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
well no but the name of the shape in accessibility is different; try entering a pic and hovering over a country with your cursor — IмSтevan talk 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah gotcha, did not know that was a feature! Makes a lot more sense to me now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
One additional thing I just noticed as I was beginning to update the maps, starting from 1956, is that we're missing the various changes to the Monegasque seafront due to its land reclamation activities. I spotted that these were included on past versions of the map but have been left out of the current templates. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, not sure if this is an issue or not, but I noticed quite late into my uploading that there's been a change to the Hungarian-Ukrainian border. Just wanted to flag in case that was something that needed fixing but no worries if not. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Honestly the Ukrainian-Hungarian border is so minor and so similar in these versions to the actual one that it's not worth going back through everything to fix it. As for Monaco yeah that should probably be included — IмSтevan talk 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll fix both in the templates at due time, but don't go back updating everything even then, let's give it some time — IмSтevan talk 23:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: That should do it. As soon as the rename requests go into effect, it should all be good — IмSтevan talk 12:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Since we're including land reclamations, how about including that the southwest part of Flevopolder in the Netherlands wasn't drained until 1968? Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Qualification tables during relegation era

Latest comment: 7 months ago19 comments2 people in discussion

The tables for the qualifiers in the 90s and early 2000's can be kinda confusing even with prose added even for a Eurofan, let alone for an average person, since some participants that are returning/debuting are not on it, making the table seem incomplete compared to the table of participants. I've had an idea on how to improve it. Thoughts? — IмSтevan talk 14:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Table key

  Automatic qualifier
  Qualifier
I understand where you're coming from with this, however I have some concerns about this approach, as I think there is the risk of even greater confusion and complexity with adding more countries here. Would we then have to add in countries which had participated in the last four/five years for completion's sake even though these countries were unable or unwilling to participate? I'm thinking of Luxembourg on the 1998 table, Hungary and Slovakia on the 2000 and 2001 tables, and Russia on the 1999 table as prime examples. Another concern I have is that the returning countries in these years were not subject to the relegation rules because the rules of those years clearly state that any countries which didn't participate in previous years but which followed all other rules would be permitted to enter, so adding these countries to the tables would be somewhat misleading in that regard. On the other hand I can see how adding all relevant countries to the table would be beneficial, particularly in analysing how countries participating in that year, including those previously relegated, would need to perform in order to avoid relegation the following year. If we keep the tables as-is with only the participants from the previous year's contest included then potentially we could make the table and column headers clearer, e.g. changing the "Country" column header to "Participants in [Year]" or something similar, which maybe could be a compromise position to reduce some of that confusion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Well in the provided example the table only covers relevant countries. Russia wasn't relegated nor was competing in 1999, so it didn't make an appearance. On the other hand, we could totally expand the table to cover every single country of the period, which would give further context; for example if a country had a high average but didn't compete, it's worth covering that in the calculation they were skipped and their place was given to the next highest placing. It would also give us cross-article consistency, as somebody wouldn't be left wondering why a country appears in one table, but not the other. I would definitely support that, with a bit of rework for the tables themselves to make them more accessible for an average reader — IмSтevan talk 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think listing every single country that participated in the preceding five years is relevant to the articles. I personally don't see how listing e.g. Italy on the 1999 or 2000 table when they didn't have any intention of participating is relevant to the qualification process for the contest in question. It sounds to me that this would be a case of a WP:NOTSTATS violation in a way, given it would only be used to posit hypothetical situations around if Italy, or other countries, had decided to participate, and therefore which countries which had participated would not have been allowed to take part. In any case this analysis can already be done with the current table set-up, where you can see clearly which countries were at risk of relegation. That's why personally keeping the tables to just the participants in the previous contest, with some modifications to the wording to clarify what the tables are presenting, makes more sense, as then the countries presented would be the only ones impacted by the relegation rules for that contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Potentially I could see how including countries which had participated in the year of the article and the preceding year would make some sense (excluding 1997 as that year had slightly different rules), however in that case the headers and table structure would definitely need to change so as to avoid further confusion about the contents of these tables. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I was literally writing a comment as you posted that second comment, the current tables do not clear up where for example Macedonia came from, even if it's in prose. The table has both qualifiers and automatic qualifiers, but then there are also several countries competing that come out of nowhere? You're right regarding NOTSTATS, but what I added in the example above is a justified inclusion. I tried editing the table a bit — IмSтevan talk 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I would either place debuting countries at the bottom of the table, since they have no rank, or not include them at all. Putting them at the top I think gives them undue prominence. I also think a different shading for the returning/debut countries would work better to distinguish them from the Big Four countries, which would also match the rules as the Big Four and returning countries are treated differently there. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm also not so sure about that "Status in [Year]" column, I feel like it's too repetitive or something. Shading and the ranking numbers, maybe with a dagger or something for the returning countries, should be sufficient, no? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I fear that without the status column, we'd end up with tables with 7 colors potentially (Qualified, AQ, Withdrew, Replacement, Returnee, Debutant, Relegated). I would give the returnees and debutants the green color (currently used for replacements; see 1998 for example) and color what we currently call replacements in the normal qualified color. Then I could see a case to remove the status column (see updated table below) — IмSтevan talk 16:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
That much neon green in the table I felt was somewhat off-putting, so I've replaced it with a softer shade of green that matches the other colours better. I also felt the wording in the key for the returning and new countries was a bit awkward sounding, so I tried to find another way to express this. Not sure how well this new wording works so I'm open to suggestions. I also felt that including the whole word "Relegation" within the table made it a lot larger than it needed to be, so I tried to express this in the same was as DNQs in 1996. Let me know your thoughts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me and it passes the accessibility test (I think) — IмSтevan talk 17:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel from an accessibility point of view we could probably do with adding daggers to some of the categories, so that the information is not solely reliant on colour alone. I've updated the 1998 article with the new format, let me know your thoughts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I like it! — IмSтevan talk 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Table key

  Qualifier
 ‡  Automatic qualifier
 †  New/returning countries which did not compete in 1999
Calculation of average points to determine qualification for the 2000 contest}}
Rank Country Average Yearly Point Totals
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
1   United Kingdom ‡ 116.80 76 77 227 166 38
2   Israel 115.33 81 DNQ 172 93
3   Sweden ‡ 90.40 100 100 36 53 163
4   Ireland 89.00 44 162 157 64 18
5   Croatia 84.60 91 98 24 131 79[a]
6   Malta 81.40 76 68 66 165 32
7   Netherlands 76.00 R 78 5 150 71
8   Estonia 75.50 R 94 82 36 90
9   Norway 75.20 148 114 0 79 35
10   Denmark 62.67 92 DNQ 25 R 71
11   Germany ‡ 62.25 1 DNQ 22 86 140
12   Iceland 61.50 31 51 18 R 146
13   Cyprus 57.60 79 72 98 37 2
14   Austria 53.00 67 68 12 R 65
15   Spain ‡ 50.80 119 17 96 21 1
16   Turkey 49.00 21 57 121 25 21
17   Belgium 47.50 8 22 R 122 38
18   Slovenia 45.40 84 16 60 17 50
19   France ‡ 44.80 94 18 95 3 14
20   Bosnia and Herzegovina 33.75 14 13 22 R 86
21   Portugal 29.00 5 92 0 36 12
22   Poland 27.20 15 31 54 19 17
23   Russia † 25.00 17 DNQ 33 R
24   Macedonia † 16.00 DNQ R 16 R
25   Finland † 15.50 R 9 R 22 R
26   Lithuania 13.00 R R 13
27    Switzerland † 9.00 R 22 5 0 R
28   Romania † 6.00 R DNQ R 6 R
–   Latvia † –[b]

R

  Comment: @Sims2aholic8: Should we differentiate relegation due to 1 poor result vs due to an average poor result? Maybe R vs R (AVG) — IмSтevan talk 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well in all of these tables the relegation ranking is going to be based on the average. We don't have these tables for 1994-1995 or 2002-2003, nor do I believe we should since those years are based solely on the previous year's results. Sims2aholic8 (talk) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean now, forgot about the R cells for 1994 and 1995. That probably does actually make some sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the hover text to differentiate. I don't think we need to change the actual presented text, I think "R" should work for all entries regardless of the method used. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn countries

To editor Sims2aholic8: Since the rules stated that the highest 17 (usually) countries with the best scores get to compete, shouldn't there still be a mention of withdrawn countries on the table? Like, Italy was always within the best 17 countries to compete, it feels like it should be in the table just to clarify why it's not competing despite that

Calculation of average points to determine qualification for the 1999 contest[c]
Rank Country Average Yearly Point Totals
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
1   Ireland 130.60 226 44 162 157 64
2   Israel ‡ 126.50 R 81 DNQ 172
3   United Kingdom 121.80 63 76 77 227 166
4   Italy[d] 114.00 114
5   Malta 94.40 97 76 68 66 165
6   Norway 83.40 76 148 114 0 79
7   Croatia 74.20 27 91 98 24 131
8[e]   Sweden 67.40 48 100 100 36 53
9[e]   Cyprus 67.40 51 79 72 98 37
10[f]   Netherlands 59.25 4 R 78 5 150
11[f]   Germany 59.25 128 1 DNQ 22 86
12   Denmark † 58.50 R 92 DNQ 25 R
13   Poland 57.00 166 15 31 54 19
14   France 56.80 74 94 18 95 3
15   Turkey 56.00 R 21 57 121 25
16   Spain 54.00 17 119 17 96 21
17   Estonia 53.50 2 R 94 82 36
18   Belgium 50.67 R 8 22 R 122
19   Slovenia 44.25 R 84 16 60 17
20   Hungary[d] 42.00 122 3 DNQ 39 4
21   Austria † 41.50 19 67 68 12 R
22   Portugal[d] 41.20 73 5 92 0 36
23   Greece 39.80 44 68 36 39 12
24   Iceland † 37.25 49 31 51 18 R
25   Bosnia and Herzegovina † 22.00 39 14 13 22 R
26   Macedonia 16.00 DNQ R 16
27[g]   Finland 14.00 11 R 9 R 22
28[g]   Slovakia 14.00 15 R 19 R 8
29    Switzerland 10.50 15 R 22 5 0
30   Romania 10.00 14 R DNQ R 6
31   Lithuania † 0.00 R R

— IмSтevan talk 18:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@ImStevan: The rules typically state that [t]he [X] participants [...] which obtained the highest average of points over the preceding five years qualify, but additionally the members which were not admitted in the previous year but which have conformed with all other rules relating to participation are eligible to enter the event. Since Italy did not broadcast the contest after 1997, and since broadcasting the previous year's event was then a prerequisite for joining (see Russia 1999), I don't believe we should be adding these countries in every single table just because they had a points total from the previous five years. I believe the current solution, which lists countries that participated in the previous year's event and the current event per that article, is simpler and covers all the necessary details for that article. As I stated above, I believe expanding this list would result in confusion, and would really only serve hypothetical "what if" questions which are too far removed from the actual real situation at that year's contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ a b Croatia's score from the 1999 contest was reduced by 33% for the purposes of determining average scores due to the use of synthesised pre-recorded vocals in that year's Croatian entry.
  2. ^ Debut appearance.
  3. ^ Determined by totalling all points awarded in the past five contests and dividing by the number of times that country had participated. 1996 did not count as a participation for countries that didn't qualify from the qualification round.
  4. ^ a b c Italy decided not to participate and Latvia was set to become a debut country. As Latvia withdrew their participation at a late stage the eliminated country with the highest average points total, Hungary, was offered their place. After declining the offer, the place subsequently passed to Portugal as the country with the next highest average points total.
  5. ^ a b Despite having the same average score, Sweden ranked higher than Cyprus by virtue of achieving a higher score in the most recent contest.
  6. ^ a b Despite having the same average score, the Netherlands ranked higher than Germany by virtue of achieving a higher score in the most recent contest.
  7. ^ a b Despite having the same average score, Finland ranked higher than Slovakia by virtue of achieving a higher score in the most recent contest.[1]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 1999 rules was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_32&oldid=1223030144"