Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2023/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is this really necessary

We usually wait till the winter of the previous before we create the next article Yarisplayz (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I feel like this should be made a draft, if anything. Granfcanuon (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? There is actual news and information coming from a reliable independant secondary source, so this does not qualify for WP:TOOSOON in my eyes. Other articles such as the Olympics and other major tournaments are also being created years in advance when there is information available, so I don't see why this has to be any different. — TheThomanski | t | c | 18:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

If a mention from a single independent source is enough then we can create articles about basically anything. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure if you want to go there I've added 4 more sources, and can add even more if you really want to. — TheThomanski | t | c | 09:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That just seems like a WP:REFBOMB to me. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just adding more sources does not immediately mean notability bomb. Actually read a section before you cite it. — TheThomanski | t | c | 20:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did read it. References should be there to support the content; all these extra references really don't. As far as I know the only reason you added them is to make the subject appear more notable. There is currently nearly no information about ESC 2023 from reliable sources. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

UK has already announced we are taking part in 2023 2A02:C7E:3C91:6B00:FC0C:2F8B:FADB:3F21 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms this? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Canadian participation

I don't think that's happening, I believe the article sited is as a result of misinterpretation of the announcement of "Eurovision Canada" from the Eurovision website. There are no EBU sources indicating that Canada will join in 2023. 23.248.100.151 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. I removed it a few minutes before. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

== ukraine should be removed from the list ==

here is the thing: ukraine surrendered to russia weeks ago, shortly after esc 2022. ukraine as a result does not exist and can not participate. russia is no longer able to participate and ukraine is now russia. 84.212.100.141 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

And have you got a source for that, or are you just trolling? Siclika (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

🇲🇦

Is it true that Morocco will participate in ESC 2023? 213.149.61.179 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Speculation falls foul of WP:Forum unless you have a valid source doktorb _words^deeds 21:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

OVO Hydro - just speculation?

In the article, there is a brief mention that the Daily Express of Scotland had suggested that the 2023 contest may be held in the OVO Hydro, as the venue had cleared its schedule for May of next year. However, there is no material information to back this up yet, and it might just be pure coincidence. Does such speculation belong on a Wikipedia page of this kind? Siclika (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are official media sources on the speculation, but as you noted, it may have been a coincidence. Really, a lot of the Location section is sourced speculation of this kind, and currently we're just documenting statements. Obviously, once EBU comes out with something official, it will override all previous claims. MinMinnH (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I can completely understand your argument, but I feel as though there is a small difference between media speculation about the Hydro and the rest of the statements in the 'Location' section. We have concrete evidence that other broadcasters have said, 'We can step in if Suspilne cannot host the contest themselves,' and evidence that mayors and other politicians have said, 'If Ukraine passes the baton onto us, we'd be happy to host: here are some ideas of where we could do that.' With the Hydro, you have a blank calendar in May 2023 with British journalists taking note of that and decidedly gushing over the possibility that the Hydro is the host venue. To me, that does not seem to be enough to warrant inclusion, and I'd personally wait for an official explanation, be it from the venue, the BBC, the EBU, whomever. Though, I could just be a pedant at the end of the day, and if it actually happens, so fool me. Siclika (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I also kinda feel like this is too speculative to be encyclopedic, despite it being sourced. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I somewhat too noticed the difference between the direct countries-mayors statements and this Glasgow newspaper piece, as here it's another body speculating on agreement between two other bodies (broadcaster and venue), so I also understand what user:"Siclika" means as reaching too-far and I can support removing; if more sources will reference this later, I will support to re-add as for significance by wider coverage. אומנות (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Morrocco

The Moroccan broadcaster has confirmed non participation 2A04:4A43:4C5F:D45C:0:0:1029:B756 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Source? doktorb _words^deeds 10:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian participation

There is no information about Russian participation. So we can't say that Russia is "country that participated in the past but not in 2023". The situation can change before the contest begins. Cat in coat (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

At the current time, as far as we know, the EBU intends on suspending its Russian members, who were all intent on leaving anyway - see here. Therefore, it can be deduced that it is very unlikely that we will see Russia next year. Siclika (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian broadcasters are suspended as EBU members, so Russia is not able to take part. This could change in theory, but this is the current situation. Hhl95 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian broadcasters have had their membership of the EBU suspended as a result of the invasion. Russia therefore cannot participate. 86.10.212.177 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ESC 2023 in associate country?

JoãotheWikiFan (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)The EBU has members outside of Europe! The "associate members". Imagine if ESC was hosted outside of Europe? Like USA, Canada or even in my country, Brazil! Do you guys think it's a good idea?

Please see WP:NOTFORUM doktorb _words^deeds 14:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Not going to happen due to travel costs for the delegations as well as the time difference. 86.10.212.177 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we remove "Declared interest in hosting"

there is zero confirmation Ukraine wont host and this really feels like jumping the gun and insinuating that an external nation will 100% host it, if Ukraine does decide to not host this can be readded but for now i dont think it should exist Popeter45 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There is also zero confirmation that Ukrain will host. It's tradition that the winning country hosts, but not at all necessary. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

the status quo is that Ukraine will host so that should be assumed unless otherwise stated Popeter45 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't assume things on Wikipedia, we write things down as they are. And the way it is right now, it is simply not certain that Ukraine will host the competition. This has been the standard thing to do for years now; until the organisers confirm that they will host, no assumption is made. It's just that normally this confirmation happens immediately after the previous contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

By having this section people ARE assuming it wont be hosted in Ukraine so by your logic it should be removed as just Speculation rather than fact, please provide evidence this is a "standard thing to do" Popeter45 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Which part of that states that the contest won't be in Ukraine?

Regarding your request for evidence: in recent years the next Eurovision Song Contest host country was announced on the same day as the victory, so there is no recent example. For the Junior Eurovision Song Contest though, that normally takes a bit longer. Take a look at how the page Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 looked ten days after the 2020 edition (before the new host country was announced). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Ukraine cannot give security guarantees in time for the preparations to start. There is indeed no hard statement yet that Ukraine won't host, but if you cannot give security guarantees, you cannot host. In this article we report incrementally on the process of deciding the host city/venue and for 2023, this is part of that process. We have not included any statement that Ukraine won't host, because such statement does not exist. Meanwhile, all included alternative options come with a provision one way or the other that the right to host still lies with Ukraine for now. Hhl95 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

UA:PBC/Suspline have not confirmed that they WILL host either. Although I am not privy to the discussions taking place between the EBU, UA:PBC, etc. there is a precedent as a proxy host nation would be required in the event of an Australian victory. Likewise, a Sanmarinese victory would also require a proxy host due to lack of suitable infastructure.

It's also worth noting that it wasn't a given that the Netherlands would host the 2021 edition following the cancellation of the 2020 contest.

To bring this back to whether this content should be on the page, although countries have participated whilst at war (most notably Bosnia & Herzogovina in 1993) what there isn't a precedent for is for a country in a state of war actually winning the competition. This is very much uncharted territory. 86.10.212.177 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

please drop the article

the rules clearly state that the winner hosts. ukraine will not even exist soon. there will therefore not be a esc 2023. the EBU needs a year to change the rules. maybe it can be hosted in a different country in 2024 but, 2023 is impossible. 84.212.100.141 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The rules do not state this. It's tradition, but not required. Historically non-winners have hosted Eurovision for a multitude of reasons, mainly lack of funding from winning countries. Besides, Eurovision is an annual event. By your logic, the 2020 article should be dropped because the event didn't happen. In the extremely unlikely event that ESC2023 doesn't happen, it's notable for that alone just like 2020. Your request is invalid. MinMinnH (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

the rules was changed during the 80s so that only the winner can arrange. after which, the winner always have. my request is very valid. the contest will either be held in ukraine or not at all. since ukraine will not exist next year, no contest can be held.84.212.100.141 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

1) Provide a source for the supposed rule change. I haven't been able to find anything of the sort. 2) Your speculation on Ukraine's continued existence is irrelevant and inappropriate. MinMinnH (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This just isn't going to happen, and especially not since the insurance policies were revised following the Pandemic. The 2020 show was cancelled as the insurance at that time would not pay out if any sort of replacement contest was mounted; hence the Shine A Light replacement programme (which in itself had to be strictly non-competitive) and the offical album were not allowed to use the words "Song Contest" on their branding, and could only use the word "Eurovision" to brand the material. This changed in 2021 ensuring that the show would go on no matter what; hence the Junior 2020 edition did not get cancelled since this was a research & development test for the worst-case scenario.

Regardless of whatever happens with the war, COVID-19 or anything else the policies now in place mean there will 100% be a show. 86.10.212.177 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the rules of the winning country hosting isn't necessary. It only stopped in 1980 because Israel had a religious festival that week. After that, no major thing happened to stop production within the hosting country. Even if Ukraine can't host, the EBU will take note and choose a different country to organize the event. Please find a reliable source that mentions this if there is one in the first place. Suffice to say, the facts are more important than opinions. Especially yours. Jusherman (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Separated tables for semifinalists and finalists

I don't think we should separate the table for the finalists from the table for the semifinalists yet, we still don't know if Ukraine will be pre-qualified if they don't host Aleki37 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the first time since 1980 that the winner will not host and the first time since we have semi-finals. So this is an unprecedented situation with regard to whether or not the winner will be automatically qualified. My guess, assuming the UK will host, is that Ukraine will be among the Big 6 because the UK is already a Big 5 member. Regardless of what the rules are. It would've been a more interesting question if the runner-up was not a Big 5 member, say Serbia. Who knows, we might've had a Big 7 (Big 5 + winner + host). Or maybe the rule is that only the host automatically qualifies. But whether right or not, you see that people and organisations are willing to give Ukraine a favourable treatment in those times, so if the rule is that only the host pre-qualifies, the EBU might be willing to deviate from that rule this time. But anyways, all this is speculation from my side. Let's see what happens. I agree that we don't know if Ukraine will be pre-qualified and that we should bring the article in accordance with that. Hhl95 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation of Montenegro

@Aleki37: regarding what you said in this edit summary: silence does not per se mean agreement. Personally, I am not sure if that source is good enough to call it a confirmation, but I was also not sure enough to remove it. Multiple other people have shown that they disagree now though, so I think the talk page is a good place to discuss it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure either; guess we just leave it like this now and wait for websites to try contacting RTCG. To me the source seems to pretty much confirm their participation, but i am aware that not everyone shares my opinion Aleki37 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

For me that source is just a little too vague for me to take is as a confirmation of participation in 2023. A "focus on participation in the Eurovision Song Contest" isn't precise enough to be able to know for certain that they will participate in 2023. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the source is too vague. It reads more like the funds went to their 2022 participation, so they can't allocate enough resources for the junior version, which is what the article is about. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't say anything about 2023 and is foremost about the JESC. I will remove it for now, as I see others are also not convinced about this source. Let's just wait for explicit confirmation. Hhl95 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Australia

Shouldn't Australia be listed somewhere on this page? Australia was able to negotiate their participation in the contest until 2023. Even if they don't end up participating, isn't it something worth mentioning? This is the article I'm getting my information from: https://www.aussievision.net/post/2019/02/13/Australia-secures-a-spot-in-Eurovision-until-2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliG.Weinmann (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For EBU events, Australia is invited, but they can choose if they want to compete or not. For example, Australia was invited to participate in 2019, but they declined to participate. We'll have to wait if Australia will compete or not until a better source is found. Jusherman (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Australia competed in ESC 2019 they placed in the top 10 that year. You might be thinking of JESC where they were invited but declined. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't even correct either, Australia did in fact participate in JESC 2019 with Jordan Anthony's "We Will Rise". Granfcanuon (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned that Australia has a guaranteed invitation. However, as we all know with birthday parties and such, getting invited does not mean that you are coming. The invitor does not dictate your participation. So, to be clear, we need to wait for Australia to explicitly confirm participation for us to elaborate on Australia in the article. Hhl95 (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

City bids

So before I remove a whole table someone has put a lot of effort into, why are we including city bids already? The BBC has not even officially accepted the invitation yet, nor has the UK been confirmed as host country. This is just jumping the gun, and through editing, I thought we had some sort of tacit consensus that city bids are not included until a host country is confirmed. Any opinions? Hhl95 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest commenting out the table for now, that way the work that has been put in can be easily added back should the UK be confirmed as the host country. I do agree that hosting the table at this stage violates WP:CRYSTAL and is way too soon. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hhl95 Yes, however Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, London and many more have entered a bid, officially. Fireste (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. The host broadcaster outlines, activates and concludes the bidding procedure. Since we don't have a host broadcaster yet, we also do not have a bidding procedure. So official bids are impossible. Those cities have only expressed interest plus maybe some ideas. Henceforth, I will remove the paragraph of city bids. Hhl95 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hhl95: what was wrong with that paragraph? It never said that those were official bids? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's right, but it makes no sense to talk about cities when the country isn't even known yet. If you check the edit page of that section, you'll see that we have a hidden table right there that can be published in case the UK gets confirmed as host country. But as long as we do not know a host country, it's not opportune to talk about host cities. The cities are just not at play right now. Hhl95 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the entire table is probably WP:UNDUE. But clearly, people have been talking about host cities, just look at the amount of sources there were. This is still relevant information to the contest, regardless of which country the EBU ends up picking. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that it is pertinent to have some information about the potential UK host cities, even if the host country is still unknown at present. It is part of the context around the location of the contest that will remain relevant once a host country has been determined. The EBU have said that they are in discussions with the BBC, so there is justification for the talk around what UK city may host the contest, and while the table would definitely violate WP:CRYSTAL, even if the contest finds a different home the information here about potential UK host cities will remain relevant to the article going forwards. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the table would be undue weight. Prose explaining the current status of determining the host nation with mentions of the individual cities that are interested seems to be the right level of detail at this time. That appears to be what's there right now as I type this. So supporting the current version. Grk1011 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There is plenty of information that could serve as context, but that we don't include. The fact that information is available or talked about, does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. The discussions with the BBC have not yet ended and could go either way, so talking about cities creates an undue bias to an outcome where the BBC ends up hosting and it's just not opportune now, the same way we do not mention the BBC as the hosting broadcaster yet. The current version violates WP:CRYSTAL just as much. So if nobody opposes, I'll remove it. Hhl95 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It was already clear that people oppose, Hhl95. It in no way violates WP:CRYSTAL because that is about unverifiable speculation, and this clearly is sourced. I also don't see how the UK cities are given undue weight; the paragraph contains one sentence discussing cities in the UK, the rest goes on about a potential Belgian bid (which btw is far less likely and is only really mentioned by one source, compared to the many sources for UK cities). Even in a future where the BBC does not end up hosting I'd keep this paragraph as it's part of the selection of the host city. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just went through the table to check sources. Please make sure that if you are adding a venue, it is part of an official proposal by the city, not conjecture or speculation by the author of the reference. Grk1011 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cardiff doesn't intend to bid

So, it was recently announced that Cardiff does not intend to bid to host Eurovision 2023 (as reported here), what is the procedure in this case? Is Cardiff removed from the table and map or left as is? IiTomsx (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine - UK hosting battle

This is turning into quite a diplomatic row. So should we open the Incidents section early or keep things as is?--Pdhadam (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd class this as an incident just yet, plus it's still very early days and I think this is currently covered at an appropriate level already in the "Location" section. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, wouldn't call this an incident. Relevant information about the location should be in the location section. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not really a diplomatic row. It's just Ukrainians fuming at the EBU and the British pretty much agreeing with the Ukrainians. So far, I don't think we have to include it, unless it changes the EBU's position. Hhl95 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Question - the article gives the impression that the EBU decided to not host in Ukraine magnanimously, i'm not sure that this is balanced? There were, as far as i am aware, three separate security assessments, one from Ukraine, one from EBU and one third-party. Notably the Ukraine security report concluded "“severe” risk of air raids/attacks by aircraft or attacks by drones or missiles, which can cause significant casualties". I think adding this to the selection section is a good idea, as it shows that efforts to correctly assess risk were undertaken by multiple parties. Jollyfroggy (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Montenegro

Why is Montenegro not on participants list here but is on EurovisionWorld? 95.168.107.18 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about EurovisionWorld, but we can't add it here until we have a reliable source where their broadcaster states that they're participating. I couldn't find one with a quick Google search, but feel free to link one here below if you find it. Blue Edits (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Please, Azerbaijan should be really removed... The broadcaster just denied the withdrawal rumors. They didn't confirm participation in the contest in the UK. And we can't rely on semi reliable sources. When we have a source the broadcaster says they confirm participation in ESC 2023 then we add it.. Please.. --JeanisDL (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Update from Montenegro

Looks like there are withdrawing this year :(

Source:https://www.rtcg.me/magazin/eurosong/381679/crna-gora-naredne-godine-nece-ucestvovati-na-eurosongu.html Hellollamame (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

oop I meant 2023 Hellollamame (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria's non-participation is unconfirmed

An unverified DM to a fan account is not valid confirmation, and BNT have said there has been no formal statement. Bulgaria should not be listed as a confirmed non-participant yet. Randombasshead (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a source for Ukraine in the final?

Whilst I absolutely expect Ukraine to be given an auto-qualy spot, the rules refer to "the host broadcaster" being given an automatic qualifying spot and not, strictly speaking, the previous year's winners. Does Ukraine being an automatic qualifier therefore need to be sourced appropriately? Spa-Franks (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

See the press release cited in the article. It explicity states that Ukraine, as the winning country of the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest, will also automatically qualify to the Grand Final of the upcoming Contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Montenegro and North Macedonia

Shouldn't these two countries be listed as withdrawing countries in the info box? 81.149.243.201 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Normally this info is only added to the infobox after the full list of participants is revealed. Until then, all information is provisional. Putting "Non-returning: Montenegro, North Macedonia" in the infobox makes it look like those are the only countries withdrawing and that it is certain, which is misleading. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Host city bidding phase table

For the Eurovision Song Contest 2023#Host city bidding phase table, should we have the venue names show their "Eurovision" name (i.e. that without any branding, Liverpool Arena, The Hydro etc.) or should we have them show their regular names (i.e. that with branding, M&S Bank Arena, OVO Hydro etc.)? XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I would challenge that there is no "regular" name for the arenas listed, only commercial and non-commercial names, i.e. when there is a branding agreement, which will change from time to time depending on who has the naming rights. Having two columns would make zero sense in my opinion, since it's not adding any value to this article on behalf of the readers, as any information or context can be achieved by clicking on the individual links. I believe we should be using the names which are most supported by sources in relation to their hosting/bidding for the contest, which would then support the use of what you refer to as the "Eurovision names". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I do get that, and I know "other stuff exists" apparently doesn't pass on Wikipedia (to which I have always countered "case law" and "precedent"): Eurovision Song Contest 2011 lists "Dusseldorf" rather than "Esprit" arena for that year's venue in the bidding table. Worth editing one or the other...? Spa-Franks (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll edit the table to show the "non-commercial" names. If anyone has any objection they are more than welcome to discuss on the talkpage XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a note at the top of the "Venue" column with a sourced statement explaining why some venues are piped to different names than their article titles. We'd also want to make sure the given sources support whichever name is listed in the column. It's possible that some references might not list an un-branded name, though I have not checked that myself. Grk1011 (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Help

Someone attact this page and added South Africa 146.212.197.220 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the issue has been resolved. Please feel free to remove it yourself next time. Blue Edits (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi Finals Running Order

Haven’t the running order spots been set in stone as at the end of the broadcast for the allocation draw, two pictures for each semi final are held up, with the countries listed in running order (in SF1 Serbia performs first, Czechia last, for SF2 Armenia first, and Poland last). Do you think this is the actual running order or rather just a random positioning of the countries in each semi final? 2001:8003:1739:D400:2439:F8EE:6622:1873 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think tonight's order is the order the countries were drawn into the first or second half of each semi-final. If recent years are anything to go by, the actual order of each half of each semi-final will be decided by the producer when all songs are known; he/she will take into account the song styles / genres to create an exciting show (try not to have too many lively songs or gentle ballads together if possible). 2.103.151.96 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They showed the countries in order of being drawn. Producers choose the running order prior to the event happening. I'd stick with alphabetical order doktorb _words^deeds 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Countries presentation

Aren't the countries supposed to be written on the white background instead of grey one? 185.251.84.42 (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The grey background is included for row and column scoping, which is an accessibility feature that enables text readers to know what the start of a column or row is. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Turkey

Is it true turkey is in eurovision 2023? They have been off since 2012, Are they in 2023 or not? 185.98.246.40 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It was literally the first year that there were no rumours about possible return Nickodath (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Slovenia's entry

Figure we may as well look for consensus about the capitalisation of Joker Out's song title. At the moment it's listed as Carpe Diem both on its own article and in this article. Musicbrainz' policy for Latin titles is that "you should generally use the capitalisation on the cover". Joker Out have it listed as "Carpe Diem" on Spotify and the single cover itself reads "CARPE DIEM". Additionally, Musicbrainz' policy then states, "The rules for Latin are similar to those for Italian... Do not capitalize any word except for the first word of the text... the first letter of a sentence... the first letter of proper nouns", which would mean "Carpe diem". The song itself is entirely in Slovene, which seems to have sentence-case capitalisation rules in the same manner as Italian, and of course we went with In corpore sano and not In Corpore Sano last year. I would support retitling to "Carpe diem" as per the second set of Musicbrainz' rules, but would like to establish consensus first. Toffeenix (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nascar9919: started a conversation about this here, but let's have this discussion on this talk page as I believe there to be more eyes here. Personally, I don't find Musicbrainz' policy relevant to any extent; we should be following Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:NCCAPS. WP:COMMONNAME is sometimes thrown around as a reasoning, but that relates more to whether you use a foreign language title or a translation. Bottom line is that capitalization (or lack thereof) of the second word does not differentiate a title between "common" and not, as capitalization does not change the name of the subject. They are both the same common name. I believe it's clear that a capitalized "Diem" is improper Latin, and its capitalization in sources is likely unintentional (they didn't know that they shouldn't capitalize it because they don't know Latin). A capitalized "Diem" is akin to a stylization in the same way that the artwork is in all caps, therefore Wikipedia guidance would prescribe "Carpe diem" as the proper article title. Grk1011 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: I hear you on that one; but there are many articles on here that have "Carpe Diem" as their official title. Should those be changed? I think the only example of "Carpe diem" being used as the title of a media title is this one, which has the title in all lowercase. This might be a bigger discussion than I thought; a capitalized "Diem" is improper, but many articles with the name do ignore that and capitalize it. I capitalized it in the article because it was the official title listed on streaming services and Eurovision. If this gets changed, then we need to consider all the other articles with "Carpe Diem", too if that's the case in my opinion. Nascar9919 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Grk1011 on this one, and the general guidance around capitalisation of articles both on Wikipedia and elsewhere would support moving this to a lower case "diem". Additionally we already have prior examples where Latin titles are in sentence case ("In corpore sano" being the prime one). I don't believe we should focus too much on other articles with the same title either, I think it's too easy to go down a rabbit hole, and just because one article has things one way doesn't mean this article should be doing the same. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8 & @Toffeenix: Right, so after looking at this, I believe that a histmerge (the person who tried to move the page did it the wrong way) would work. I think the consensus is that "Carpe diem" would be correct per rules. Nascar9919 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would agree that a histmerge into "Carpe diem" would make the most sense, given everything described above and also to fix the mess of the article duplication. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

All caps is out as per WP:NCCAPS, but seeing as all streaming platforms and Eurovision.tv (the source we use for entries on the main article) use "Carpe Diem" and no sources use "Carpe diem", I think that should be the title. Also, WP:ALBUMCAPS does not apply as the song is in Slovene, not Latin. I don't see why we should be prioritizing Latin grammatical rules over the name of the song as established in reliable sources. Blue Edits (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Edits: The prioritisation here is not specifically on Latin grammar rules but on Wikipedia rules and guidance, which are important in order to make all articles across Wikipedia as consistent as possible. The majority of sources for "In corpore sano" have each word capitalised as well, but the article on Wikipedia is in sentence case for the same reasons as above. It doesn't make sense for us to use one rule for one song and a different one for another. And why does a song being in a different language to the title mean we should go down a different route here exactly? It's still a Latin phrase, so guidance around Latin titles, and non-English titles in general, should still apply, in the same way as for "In corpore sano" which was in Serbian. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't condescend to me, I know perfectly well what the purpose of Wikipedia policy is. Firstly, ALBUMCAPS is not policy, it's a WikiProject essay, and it's vague in that it says "titles of tracks other than English", which could to refer to either the title or the track. We shouldn't be using ICS as a guide for WP:OTHERSTUFF reasons when we also have Carpe Diem (Hande Yener album), Carpe Diem (Belinda Peregrín album), Carpe Diem (Saxon album), Carpe Diem (Olamide album), and Carpe Diem (Nightmare album) as articles. ICS also had the issue of having inconsistent capitalization across reliable sources (leaning caps on Eurovision sources, but lowercase on the Spotify release). That's not an issue with Carpe Diem, which is consistently capitalized as such in every reliable source. Spelling it as "Carpe diem" on the basis of a particular reading of an essay (not a guideline!) when RS suggests otherwise is WP:OR. Blue Edits (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

From my reading of above, WP:ALBUMCAPS was mentioned as additional backup to provide some context for a music-based subject, but ultimately WP:NCCAPS, a guideline and official naming convention, would appear to be the deciding factor. Let's also remember that capitalization is not spelling, so guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME appear to be only tangentially related, given that both "Carpe Diem" and "Carpe diem" are the same name, word and spelling. Grk1011 (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I've checked WP:NCCAPS: the bolded sentence ends with "unless the title is a proper name". Since this is a song title, that applies, so scrolling down to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Works and compositions leaves us with "a title in a foreign language [...] retain[s] the style of the original for modern works". That section has a See also, with the relevant link there being the guideline WP:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization, which states: "For extinct languages like Latin the convention can be less clear, so depends largely on consensus and how the available sources would generally write the name."

This is the only policy I can find about Latin titles in music. I have only found sources that refer to the song as "Carpe Diem", so unless anyone has found reliable sources for the lowercase capitalization I would support capital-D for the article title. Blue Edits (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It was not my intention in the reply above to be condescending towards you, so if that's how it came across to you I apologise. Even if we discount "In corpore sano", "Carpe Diem" is also inconsistently capitalised in other sources (see [1] [2] [3] as some examples, I'm sure there are others). There could also be a bit of "chicken vs egg" here with this, as potentially Wikipedia's article title could have influenced the writings of other websites, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. There are many cases where just because outside of Wikipedia a title is capitalised in a certain way doesn't mean that Wikipedia should follow the same suit, e.g. the majority of song articles on the official Eurovision website are in all caps even though within Wikipedia we follow the specific title rules for those languages. And as Grk1011 mentioned, WP:COMMONNAME appears to only count for completely different titles, not differences in capitalisation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links and the apology. None of the links strike me as particularly relevant (two of them use both "Carpe Diem" and "Carpe diem" on the linked page so that doesn't help, and one of them is a non-English site that has written Ireland's entry as "We are one", "We are One", and “We Are One” within the same post). As you said there may be more out there, though I'm concerned about reliability. WP:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization does say "available sources" without specifying WP:RS, but short of say BLPPROD I don't see why a guideline would advise relying on unreliable sources...?

As for "just because outside of Wikipedia a title is capitalised in a certain way doesn't mean that Wikipedia should follow the same suit", as linked above WP:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization advises us to rely on sourcing for Latin song titles. Would now be a good time to suss out which sources we want to use, since it's possible we'll have similar dilemmas in the future? Maybe the previous discussion about the reliable source list plays a part here? Blue Edits (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I do take your point here on the reliability of the sources. I can't say for certain whether all of these are considered reliable, I know at least Eurofestivalnews has been used previously within our articles and is generally considered generally reliable on some topics. To me it still seems that per the guidance on how to write Latin that a capital "Diem" is improper gramatically. This might be supported by the majority of sources, but so are other articles where Wikipedia differenciates, and there are sources out there that don't follow this so it's not so cut and dry as what is stated above. The problem here is the different style guides can be contradictory (which anyway is stated in the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)), and I'm not sure there is a right or wrong way to capitalise this so I guess it just comes down to building a consensus somehow on this point. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

As a post-script to the point around other articles being capitalised, album titles have different rules as enacted by WikiProject Albums (see WP:ALBUMCAPS). Per that guidance, for album tracks the standard is to use the capitalization utilized by that language, not the English capitalization, which would mean that standard Latin capitalisation rules should apply. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Bugger, is Musicbrainz' policy not what we use? I'm not good at this Toffeenix (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic/Czechia

The Eurovision website has now updated and now refers to the country as “Czechia.” Should the article be edited to reflect this change?[4]https://eurovision.tv/participant/vesna-2023 Problematty81 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia (in English) uses Czech Republic, Ivory Coast, and Turkey; not Czechia, Côte d'Ivoire, or Türkiye. Policy is policy doktorb _words^deeds 21:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There is an open move request related to this taking place here. Grk1011 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, in the case of ice hockey, Wikipedia uses Czechia. See 2022 IIHF World Championship#Group A. What's the difference? Martin Tauchman (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's so clear cut. Those Czechia links all go to Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team, which from the edit history, appears to also be the subject of a controversial move debate. Grk1011 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@Problematty81: Why did you revert my edit? - ImStevan (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Same question @Tomls10: - ImStevan (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not necessary for your edits to be there. It has been stated in the paragraph above the section "Final" that the "ten best-ranked entries of each of the two semi-finals" will participate in the Grand Final. The reading should be enough to prove that your edit is unnecessary. 47.26.62.157 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Australian participation

Australia chose their artist and song last night. Please update it. 80.43.219.74 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Graham Norton

How can Graham Norton be both the host and the BBC One commenator in the final? I don't understand that, if someone understands, please explain to me how he can be both the host and the commenator of the final at once. DSOFOreverTYU ~ talk ~ Eurovision 20:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Terry Wogan did the same in 1998 (when the UK hosted last) and had a commentary booth erected behind the stage so he could quickly commentate and host simultaneously. Not sure how the BBC plans to do it but Mel Giedroyc will act as a back up commentator when Norton is presenting. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@DSOFOreverTYU and XxLuckyCxX: Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK about what is useful and not useful content to be posting on article talk pages. These kind of discussions are better placed within a specific Eurovision forum, and not a Wikipedia article talk page. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Active/Associate EBU Members

Why were Andorra, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Kosovo removed from this section? Only Bulgaria, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Kazakhstan are left. This feels really weird and I think the former 5 should still be there. 2001:8003:1739:D400:1052:592C:334F:3853 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I added those back in with the undo button 47.40.143.152 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears that those nation's responses were either prompted by a news outlet as a "check in" (no intent to return and not relevant/encyclopedic) or consisted of an explanation of several WP:SYNTH hoops a nation would have to jump through to be able to participate. This section is reserved for countries that have a recent history of competing, but have publicly decided not to participate in the year's contest for a specific reason. This also includes current year withdrawals and disqualifications. Grk1011 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

As a WikiProject we reached consensus last year about what should be included in this section (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 25#RfC on layout of "contest by year" articles). If any WikiProject members would like to challenge this I would suggest they open a discussion on the WikiProject talk page. I've now included a short sentence as a catch-all for other broadcasters that provided a blanket statement confirming non-participation, which should hopefully be a sufficient compromise and prevent future edit warring on this subject. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Whilst that makes sense, I do think some countries (like Andorra) should remain on there since there have been rumours of potential returns from some of these countries. Luxembourg is an example of a country that can be removed since they likely won't ever participate again, but nearly every other country that was on this list had a reason to be there. Violatie (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Andorra, they are included on the 2022 article because there is actual information related to their potential participation in that year's contest. Any information that was previously included for 2023 only rehashed this and was essentially WP:SYNTH, and so is not relevant here. In the same way as information related to Monaco is included here and not on other articles because there was specific information that means they should be included. Just because a website reaches out, publishes an article on "X country won't participate" without anything specific about the circumstances related to this contest does not mean that it is relevant we spell out for every single country the blanket statement provided by the broadcast (as was the case with the removed countries in this article). The circumstances and rumours swelling elsewhere on the internet around a country potentially participating should not dictate what we should include, and we should be following the Wikipedia guidelines to create good articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Let's say a typical ESC source like Eurovoix, ESCToday, Wiwibloggs, etc. decides to contact every broadcaster that doesn't participate and posts an article about them saying they don't participate. That's not news, though it could make for an attractive article for them. Not everything published by a source is encyclopedic. Grk1011 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Didn't Luxembourg say they have plans on returning? I know they had commented for 2024, but what about 2023? 47.40.143.152 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This information is captured in Draft:Eurovision Song Contest 2024, it is not relevant to the 2023 article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Melissa suing ERT

With Melissa suing the Greek broadcaster to be recognized as the rightful winner of their national selection, should Greece be shaded blue and should a footnote be added to note that the result of the national selection could possibly change? ImStevan (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This information is better captured in the Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 article. I don't see how it is relevant at this level; Victor Vernicos was announced as the Greek entrant by ERT, and at the moment this still stands and additional information is not needed here. In the same way that there were changes or queries about the Ukrainian entries in 2019 and 2022 this information isn't featured in those Eurovision articles but in the Ukraine in Eurovision articles. This article should be updated only once a change becomes confirmed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@ImStevan: I've added a section to the Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023 article about this as Sims2aholic8 suggested. Grk1011 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Temporary protection

There are a lot of new or unregistered users who keep changing Poland's song and artist, which I think is vandalism. Could the user rights on the page be temporarily changed to autoconfirmed and confirmed users until this vandalism calms down? Wasabi OS (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've filed the request for page protection, so expect it to be changed soon. Blue Edits (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Finland's entry: same thing again

I would argue that it should be "Cha cha cha", which we were fine with until the song won the NF, apparently. "Cha cha cha" within the lyrics *could* be considered an interjection, but if it's decided that Finnish rules don't apply in that context, why does that mean English rules *do* apply? Or why would that mean that capitalising every word is the standard? Toffeenix (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Prudhoe in the Host city bidding phase section

Can I suggest Prudhoe is removed from both the list and the map given that the reference only lists a councillor jokingly mentioning the idea of the tiny town hosting the contest. Every other city listed in the table had at least a reasonable amount of work put into bidding or proposal to bid for the contest. I'd say this town, which as a British person I'd never even heard of before, doesn't deserve to be on there. gottago (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This town has under 12,000 inhabitants and no venue. It was never even suggested as a host town; the one single local politician, the source for this story, said the county of Northumberland should host, not Prudhoe itself - and regions are never considered as host locations. I can't find a single BBC source that has Prudhoe as on the list of possible hosts. And of course, Prudhoe never submitted a bid or even an expression of interest. More on how it came to be talked about here:

https://escxtra.com/2022/06/20/prudhoe-eurovision-2023/

Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that bit. The reference doesn't indicate that it was a serious bid proposal/offer. Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Commenators

I've noticed that Graham Norton is listed as commentary for the Final? I thought he was presenting so obviously that's not accurate no? MattBinYYC (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Terry Wogan was presenter and commentator in 1998. It's possible to do both. doktorb _words^deeds 06:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Pasha Parfeni in 2013

The page currently states he "provided backing vocals [...] in 2013". Did he not just appear on stage playing the piano? He didn't sing, nor did Aliona Moon have any backing singers if I recall correctly. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

TVE will broadcast the three shows also on TVE UHD

TVE will broadcast the three shows also on TVE UHD, the information has been added today to the article that is used as a source for Spain in the "Broadcasts" section.

I take this opportunity to say that the source used contains very poor information, and that in the original source (https://www.escplus.es/eurovision/2023/asi-sera-la-programacion-especial-de-rtve-para-eurovision-2023/) there is much more information on the subject and should be taken into account. Ferx90 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

EVV not free for the very first time?

During the final show on Saturday, the Eurovision Village will have an entrance fee. I’m convinced that it’s the first time ever that at least a part of the EVV is not free, but so far I couldn’t find any official proof for that claim. Any suggestions? Sietske (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source available for this claim then we can't add this to Wikipedia under WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, especially given that the statement is highly likely to be challenged if not backed up by a reference. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources found, problem solved. Sietske (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Postcards section

Given the complexity of what will be contained in the postcards which are being developed for this contest, and the lack of information at present for specific information on locations assigned to each country, does it make more sense to remove the postcards table from being presented on the article for now? Since we don't have any specifics on the UK/Ukraine locations that will be used for any entry right now (and we probably won't get any new information on this for another couple of weeks), I think the table of locations (or lack thereof) is currently more of a distraction at this point given the large amount of null space. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think keeping the postcard table is fine-- I've referred to it a few times and don't think it's too bad on mobile or desktop. If you're concerned about the null space, would commenting out the two UK/Ukraine columns for now help? Blue Edits (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

To take a step back, is this level of detail necessary? I worry about WP:UNDUE weight and to some extent WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of information. The postcards serve as a quick visual introduction for each country, but this table presents them in excruciating detail as if this were a critical aspect of the contest. In years past it was just a bulleted list, but now we have three locations for each planned. Wikipedia is not really setup to be the source for fans to find out about everything Eurovision, it is by policy, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Grk1011 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a very valid point. On another note, I certainly don't oppose a simple bullet point list with the specific locations for the segments with the competing artists, but at this moment we don't even know the overall format of the postcards. It is unclear at this stage whether there will be multiple locations in the UK/Ukraine for each entry or it will be a single location chosen to complement the location in the country of the performer. With this in mind it appears a bit WP:TOOSOON to be changing this to a table, and agreed that having this level of detail may infringe upon WP:UNDUE. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Czechia

It says on the participating countries "Czech Republic" however the country's name officially is Czechia so maybe that should be changed here too MICKEYSTAMATIOU (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 10 February 2023 and the various discussions on Talk:Czech Republic for why we continue to use "the Czech Republic" on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Spokespersons

https://www.sanmarinortv.sm/news/cultura-c6/eurovision-2023-john-kennnedy-o-connor-spokesperson-per-san-marino-a240088 24.156.46.217 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Request to add content about the stations to broadcast the event in question. EX: TVP1 Poland Samucitoh (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Faroe Islands

I have an insider - Faroe Islands will broadcast Eurovision this year. source: https://kvf.fo/nskra/sv?date=2023-05-09 Vesparaw07 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Euro Jury

Should the Euro Jury be included? The OGAE poll is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D529:4601:A8AF:ABE7:EDD6:1519 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not even sure why the OGAE poll is included considering it's a fan vote. It hasn't been "official" in any capacity for many years (certainly not this year). Blue Edits (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There is potentially a wider discussion required around which "other awards" should be included in these articles. There are a lot of fan awards/polls that exist out there, and not many of them pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines to warrant inclusion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the OGAE vote is notable, but Eurojury is yet to reach that level ImStevan (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Postcards

The twitter account ESCdiscord is posting all postcard locations as they are being presented in the rehearsal. They have been a reliable source so far, should the info be included? If so, should a table be made so that the 3 locations (Ukraine-UK-local) can be connected in a comprehensive way? ImStevan (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I have not caught them on saying anything wrong, as far as I know they're not journalists (and I can't know because they don't list authors), and in any case it remains a self-published source. Given the frequency of their tweets lately, I'm guessing they don't spend a lot of time fact-checking their work.

This info will probably be published in a reliable source soon anyway, so we might as well wait. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this last month. My opinion remains that this level of detail would be WP:UNDUE, but we didn't really come to a consensus given the lack of input. Grk1011 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Qualifier changes

@Jochem van Hees: I think we could keep the announced change and the revert, but not under a separate title as it would be giving it undue coverage. Just mentioning it in a single sentence. ImStevan (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think I agree. I feel like a whole section under Incidents like it is now is a bit much (does this even count as an incident?). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "incident" to any extent. I suggest it be incorporated into the format section. Grk1011 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

Add in Ireland- Niamh Kavanagh to the section on spokespersons.

Source: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2tnyUpFlnXecBWhYSvXGNn?si=O4qUKRV0RZqGhWIVxS1v5A&t=808 37.228.201.187 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spotify is not a reliable source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Would this be a valid use of a self-published source per WP:ABOUTSELF? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees and Blaze Wolf: I would argue that its as valid as them posting that they will be a spokesperson to any other platform, like Instagram or Twitter, and we take those as valid sources. ImStevan (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

non qualifiers

Netherlands isn't painted red on the map. Vesparaw07 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RTK

Nowhere in Kosovo's RTK's programming scheme for this week is there a mention of them broadcasting Eurovision. Should they be removed from the broadcasts section? ImStevan (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources on that. Yes, it should be removed. LDM2003 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Eurovoix is the source as stated on the right side of the table, but RTK doesn't mention it at all ImStevan (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Change Czech Republic to Czechia. 204.187.66.171 (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Callmemirela 🍁 21:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Australian spokesperson update

SBS has announced that the Australian jury spokesperson is Catherine Martin, Oscar-winning costume designer, in a press release this morning https://www.sbs.com.au/aboutus/sbs-announces-four-time-oscar-winner-catherine-martin-as-australia-s-spokesperson-for-the-2023-eurovision-song-contest-jury 49.185.208.76 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic or Czechia

I see in the live broadcast that the Czech Republic is presented as Czechia. It might be a non-issue, but should it be reflected in the article?--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It should. 2001:1C01:2B08:FC00:3850:32D9:E9C1:942A (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here: Talk:Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest § Requested move 10 February 2023 ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that things have changed now that the EBU apparently have adapted to this name for the country in the contest.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

But nothing has changed since the WP:RM linked above. It's more likely that our articles are changed when an RM for the Czech Republic is opened, and consensus reached for a move - ninth time's the charm? -- AxG / ✉  21:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that in the linked RM, Chrz made a good case that it doesn't per se have to be consistent with every single other Wikipedia article. If "Czechia" becomes the dominant way people refer to the country in the context of Eurovision, then Wikipedia should reflect that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Detailed televoting results tables

I created the large tables (they are commented out at the moment, so you can only see them when editing source). However, I am too tired now to fill them in, so I hope someone else has the time. Good night. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

Postcard locations Under France > palaces > UK Change Houston House to Hopeton House 176.25.4.130 (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? FusionSub (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

there is no place in west lothian called houston house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopetoun_House this is the location used. 2A02:C7C:CAAB:B900:41AE:4D42:EFD1:C24C (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/watch?mpAhfmrBxXc?t=638 the postcard in question. 2A02:C7C:CAAB:B900:41AE:4D42:EFD1:C24C (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Rita Ora medley

The text currently reads, Ora performed a cover of an unspecified song called "Praising you". Actually it is "Praise You" by Fatboy Slim from 1999. The article is currently locked, so I can't enter this info myself. 145.40.208.28 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@145.40.208.28 it's actually a new song to be released soon. It's not a full cover, but samples the Fatboy Slim track. 94.175.96.176 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Participating countries - Results

The article is protected right now, so I put it here.

I would like to add in the Section Participating countries - Results sentence "It is also the first time since the EBU started publishing detailed voting results that winner didn't get 12 points from any of the participating country in televoting." as a second to last in paragraph. Thank you. 88.208.127.220 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@88.208.127.220: source? ImStevan (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia. Specific data for Eurovisions 2016-23 are in the articles (sections Detailed voting results). For years 2014-15 EBU provided detailed voting results (which can be found in References).

2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2015#cite_note-Final_split_results-62

2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014#cite_note-Final_split_results-74

In year 2013 and before that EBU didn't provide detailed split results due to different voting system and also because of the statement which can be found in this Reference in article about Eurovision 2013.

"To protect the fairness of the voting, the EBU does not release the split ranking of televoting and jury per country. Publishing these numbers would explicitly highlight if countries don't meet the televoting threshold – the minimum number of televotes needed to become a statistically valid result - is and where thus only the jury voting was regarded valid. Explicitly highlighting these countries could lead to unwanted disproportionate influence on the televoting in these countries in future years to come." 88.208.127.220 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Broadcast on Radio Promin.

Please add information about the broadcast of the final on Radio Promin. There are problems with the table, so I can't add correctly myself. Thank you. http://test.nrcu.gov.ua/schedule/period-items.html?channelID=2&date=2023-05-14 Михайло Думич (2003) (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Another source: [5]https://eurovision.ua/5098-pobachennya-z-yevrobachennyam-shhop%CA%BCyatnyczi-na-radio-promin/ - I can also personally confirm that they actually ran the radio broadcast because I recorded the stream. Alas I don't speak the language so I can't name the presenter. MB0RuS (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oleksandra Franko and Oleksandr Barbelen. Михайло Думич (2003) (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

These commentators worked for Radio Promin. In the link above, the last names are indicated. Михайло Думич (2003) (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Viewing Figures

BBC have released their viewing figures for the grand final. I have put a reference in on the relevant cell of the table. https://twitter.com/bbcpress/status/1657671578870530048 Sgdw (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In this table what datas will be represented in the "Viewership" column? I guess not the average numbers because those have a different column.

• Peak tv number (during the broadcast)?
• Reach number (= viewers who watched the show at least one minute)?

Ksz83 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

San Marino televote

Should there be a note for San Marinos ”televoting” result, noting that the country do not have a televote option and that this result is based on jury votes?BabbaQ (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: It's not based on jury votes but aggregated results, but I agree that a note should be added ImStevan (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@ImStevan: Yes you are right. And a note should be added, indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the EBU, San Marino finished 15th, and Romania 16th

Looking at the result presented here https://eurovision.tv/event/liverpool-2023/second-semi-final It shows San Marino as a 15th place and Romania as 16th. This article says it's the other way around, and cites a tie-breaking rule with no source. Personally, I think the EBU put San Marino higher because they might have gotten a higher average result, without hitting top10 in any country and thus still getting no points. Assumptions aside, shouldn't we change San Marino's placement as 15th, since that's what the official results say? Spalmanvv (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed this problem and wanted to write about it as well. I thank you for having preceded me on the issue. I would be in favour of fixing the ranking with the official results taken from the site, but I would also like to know the opinion of more experienced users such as @Jochem van Hees and ImStevan: before acting with the edits. -- Dominikcapuan (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm interesting. I also would be in favour of using the official website's ranking, as that's more explicit than applying the contest's rule. But that does make me wonder if we should apply these tiebreaker rules on Wikipedia at all (like in the split results of the 2021 final), or if this falls under WP:SYNTHESIS. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what to say about this honestly, since en.wiki is not my main area of expertise, but by inserting the note we can accompany the information with the source attesting to this. But I personally think it's a good idea to fix the positions and their ranking first, and then the rest we can think about later. :) -- Dominikcapuan (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: it would be WP:SYNTHESIS if we couldn't provide a reliable source connecting the two, but we can. ImStevan (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia isn't my main project yet so I'm not sure what the policy is. I believe that this was simply a typo/error on the EBU's behalf (and it wouldn't be the first), since we know that the contest's rules would place San Marino 16th as stated in other reliable sources such as EurovisionWorld ImStevan (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

The EBU changed the results on their official page to list Romania as 15th and San Marino as 16th ImStevan (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sweden, Finland and the voting system controversy

In the title. I find it really odd that this year of all years is the one where all the debate regarding the jury/televote balance warrants its own section in the article, while previous years have seen similar if not even bigger jury/televote discrepancies. Should we keep it or adjust it or remove it entirely? Pdhadam (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, people all over internet, including Twitter, has making this kind of argument as well. Unsure if this was safe to be keep it right there unless if this conversation kept going. VernardoLau (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think like a lot of things, people are just mad that Finland didn't win. The lead section originally mentioned that Finland won the televote, but this isn't something that happens on any other pages. The "controversy" isn't notable enough in my opinion for its own paragraph and, like you said, isn't on any other page. Wasabi OS (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This keeps on being added back in (and still doesn't appear in other Eurovision articles in which there is a different televote and overall winner), is there a consensus that it should be removed? SalisburySyndrome (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We have had similar or bigger discrepencies in the past but the wave of criticism and controversy this result has caused is unlike any other we have had in years. It should definitely be mentioned in the article in one way or another. Agwjkl (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the remark above. The only reason why this "wave of criticism and controversy" seems "unlike any other" is because it is still recent. If you look at the sources the criticism is selective, and far from a controversy. There have been similar waves of criticism in previous years. Need I remind you all that when Ukraine won in 2016, fans started a petition to have the results revoked just because Jamala was placed second with both juries and viewers? (https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/eurovision-ukraine-petition-review-jamala-7377369/) And in the year before (2015), results were also questioned because Italy ended up third despite winning the televote in a "landslide" - but being placed sixth with the juries, instead placing Sweden first (third in the televote) (https://wiwibloggs.com/2015/05/25/eurovision-2015-voting-results/96466/). There are also significant masses who still question the Ukrainian victory in 2022, seeing it merely as a political victory due to the war (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/16/ukraines-eurovision-victory-was-political-so-is-eurovision-itself/). If people are still talking about this "controversy" (as indeed a controversy) in six months time, with Loreen dropping in the charts as well, then I agree it should go into the article. 77.105.254.111 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And then there's all these years we're not even aware of what discrepancy there might have been, when the the full jury and televoting points were not disclosed separately... Tvx1 13:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023 ==

The Eurovision Song Contest 2023 was the 67th rigged edition of the Eurovision Song Contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvcornx (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Any source about that rigged votes? And also, does the EBU got the comment about it? VernardoLau (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel's controversy

there are people who denounce that they allow Israel to participate while bombing Gaza while Russia was justly punished 188.76.202.153 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@188.76.202.153: WP:UNDUE due to a lack of reliable sources and no relevant organization or broadcaster issuing a complaint about it. Also, that would rather be a topic of the Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest article than being tied to this specific year ImStevan (talk)

There's even an Israel section in that article ImStevan (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The situation in Israel (by reports), is missile launches from Gaza (I know as someone who needed shelter many times while hearing the bombings above); and while Israel's military saying targeting and bombing specific buildings, apartments even, of Gaza militarist heads, as well the places of the the missiles ammunition. First - why you probably couldn't bring wide-related reports of attempts to sanction Israel by other (or by many, I don't know) broadcasters, and as to user:ImSteven response about lack of relevant issued complaints. With that, next time 188.76.202.153, address the situation please by presenting both sides when using your own words, and find notable sources even for a talk page for others saying solely one-sided "bombing" and as if indiscriminately, and "justly punished" while presenting other countries negatively at the process. Otherwise looks as though you forum your own thoughts/wishes, and which can affect others; and which as Wikipedia volunteers including myself, don't want to bump into. If you do find coverage, then by guidelines it can, and should, appear on related articles or this article too if you find relevant organisations complaints or wide-notable petitions for this event. אומנות (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Rest of the World rankings

Each country has its own separate page that details the full jury and televoting ranking of that country.

Since the RoTW rankings for the semis and final has no separate Wiki page, should it be included here as a statistic? Ja 1207 (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no need for a separate article as the Rest of the World points for the semi-finals and final are already included in full in this article. Secondly, the articles you refer to are about each country's overall participation in the contest as a whole, not just their votes. Additionally, we don't have a full breakdown of the remaining results of the Rest of the World to include anywhere, and even if we did, without the proper context adding these to Wikipedia would likely violate WP:NOTSTATS. Sims2aholic8 (talk)

M&S Bank Arena

Should the name of the arena throughout the article be changed to M&S Bank Arena (the current name of the venue) rather than the current Liverpool Arena?

• "Work has begun to transform the M&S Bank Arena in Liverpool for the Eurovision Song Contest".
• "The city hosted the competition’s final event at its M&S Bank Arena on Saturday night (13 May)".
• https://www.mandsbankarena.com/

Turini2 (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Turini2 The EBU has strictly used the non-sponsored names of the ESC host venues, and this policy applies to the Wiki as well Pdhadam (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense - especially if that's consistent across the ESC pages. That policy isn't Wikipedia wide though! :) Turini2 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't dictated by the EBU. We don't have to copy their habits. Wikipedia isn't censored.Tvx1 16:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd stick with 'Liverpool Arena' for now, it's what our article is called and in the long term it's the more stable name — Scousers mostly still call the place the Echo Arena, and that sponsorship ended at the beginning of 2019! A.D.Hope (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi final 2

Hey! According to Eurovision.tv website, Romania finished in 16th place and San Marino in 15th place. I know that the rule is that running order determines the tie break when two or more countries finishes with 0 points, but that's what's on the website. I don't know what the reasoning is that San Marino finished above Romania when it should be the opposite. 90sveped (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Now the EBU has changed the places, so Romania is 15th and San Marino is 16th: https://eurovision.tv/event/liverpool-2023/second-semi-final Eurovisionfandk (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Add viewing figures data Hugocm99 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you reread what counts as a valid edit request, a complete and specific description of the request is required. Also, viewing figures are already included within the article. Please check the whole article before making future requests like these. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

San Marino jury vote in semi

In early May, the EBU published this, in which we can read "Juries from the participating countries in Semi-Final 1 and Semi-Final 2 (as well as the pre-qualified countries voting in each of the Semi-Finals) will cast their votes, but their votes will not count towards the result of the Semi-Finals unless a valid audience vote has not been recorded or an aggregated substitute result cannot be used." which contradicts their own press release of November 22 by indicating that the order of priority is televote then aggregated result then jury vote... So have the juries been used or not ? Yoyo360 (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: Voting changes FAQ however states in the "What are the circumstances in which a Jury vote will be used in the Semi-Finals?" section that if a tele result cannot be used, the jury result will be used instead. Considering the large overlap of Sammarinese points in Semi 2 and their jury results in the Final, that must've been the case. The one you're referring to applies to the Grand Final. This should be updated on the article, I just can't do it in this moment, but if nobody does by tommorow, I will ImStevan (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)