Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Links to languages in tables

There have been many discussions about this before, which previously resulted in removing only the wikilinks for English. I'd like to suggest taking this a step further though: removing all links to languages from the tables. Quoting MOS:OVERLINK: "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from." Articles about languages don't provide any additional context to Eurovision, and I also don't recall ever following such a link from a Eurovision article. Maybe for really rare languages it would be worth mentioning it in prose and linking to it from there. The current state makes it a bit hard to explain why only English is not linked and the rest is, which has led to multiple small edit wars already. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think every language should be linked, regardless of how rare the language is. If we stop linking the languages, what will be next? There are most definitely many other links used on Eurovision articles that don't provide additional context to Eurovision itself. Regardless of that, I think the language link provides context to the entry itself rather than to Eurovision as a whole. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 01:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what will be next? Why is that a concern now? Anyway, what context does info about a language give about an entry? The only thing I can think of is knowing where it is spoken, but generally the name of the language already tells you enough. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see both sides to this, certainly I think a lot of (if not all!) readers will know what the English language is on the English Wikipedia, and presumably most of the "major" languages, e.g. French, German, Spanish, would be well known enough that linking them could be seen as overkill. I suppose for me it is a difficult thing on where to draw the line between what languages should or shouldn't be linked, so linking the first instance of each language, as is the current method utilised, may be the best compromise. Happy to continue to discuss this though to determine other opinions out there. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, drawing the line on what languages should or shouldn't be linked is very difficult, so I also suggest keeping it as linking the first instance of each language including English, as it's just as well known as most other languages so not linking only English doesn't add up. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 07:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The difference would be that if you are reading the English Wikipedia, you'd hopefully know what the English language is. That isn't the same for non-English languages here. I don't really have a strong preference overall, but the first mention probably seems the most reasonable to me. Grk1011 (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in after the edit war that has been going on at Eurovision Song Contest 2022: I agree with Grk1011. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the reason why I suggested linking none of the languages; it avoids both having to choose and violating MOS:OVERLINK. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I fear though that linking none of the languages would then fall foul of MOS:UNDERLINK; there's certainly notability and usefulness in including links to Crimean Tatar or Sranan Tongo for example, hence why I say it's a difficult balance to achieve. Personally I think removing links to the English language does makes logical sense for these articles on the English Wikipedia, so I'm happy to support that. Other languages could be best left alone given the complexity of determining which languages to keep links to vs. which to discard. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise. We don't need each and every example of the same language linked, and we certainly don't need each and every use of English linked. doktorb _words^deeds 20:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Haphazard JESC merges

I have a problem with what appears to be the standard practice of merging the entirety of both the song and artist stub articles into a section of the Country in JESC year pages. See here. After reading half the article you get a section that repeats what's already in the selection section above it: a description of the artist and the song. No attempts appear to have been made other than my apparently bold edit to adequately merge these articles in following the redirects. The idea of these articles is to be a story of the participation for a particular year, not a place to recreate a redirected article by leaving it completely intact (including infoboxes) on a different page. Do people feel strongly about this? I saw that my initial edit was undone, so looking to gain some perspective. Grk1011 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I share your concern. Most of these weren't added after a merge, they were added because it's standard on basically all JESC participation pages. This leads to those very meaningless sections, but also sections like Serbia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2016 § Dunja Jeličić, which detail on a lot of stuff that is completely not related to JESC. Oh, and of course all unsourced. On top of that, having multiple infoboxes has caused issues such as this. I'd vote for completely removing all "artist and song information" sections from all these pages. If there's relevent content in there, then it can be merged with other sections. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support completely removing these sections as well and merging any relevant information into the article proper. I certainly don't believe these should be used as a "dumping ground" for unrelated, non-JESC content as is currently the case. While certainly right now many of these artists do not fulfil the notability requirements outlined in WP:MUSICBIO, that doesn't mean that information which would be included in a stand-alone article should be placed in these articles either. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging some people who have actually worked on these artist and song information sections: Dummelaksen, Kristianmusic, Գարիկ Ավագյան. What would you think about their removal? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: agreed, if the artists aren't notable then these sections aren't useful, and the few who are notable don't need a subsection of another article when we can just create a standalone article. I've written some of these recently because of the standard practice but I have no problem with removing them.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: thanks for pinging me, but to be honest, I have no definite opinion on this. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Alerts

Hi everyone! There are a number of ongoing discussions for articles related to the project that aren't happening on this talk page. If y'all haven't already, I would suggest adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Article alerts to your watchlists so that they don't fall through the cracks. There are several items that could use input from members. There is also a Good Article review drive ongoing this month. These drives bring in more reviewers and build excitement around GAs, so it's a good time to submit new articles for review as well. Grk1011 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Which of them do you think could use some input though? Most of the AfDs seemed to me like they were quite clearly heading for deletion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

None in particular, just that it's good practice to add additional thoughts (for or against) when possible to help the closing admin gain a better sense of the consensus. The more input, the stronger the consensus can be if we ever need to refer back to previous cases. Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Links to sections

I've noticed there's a lot of direct wikilinks links to sections in Eurovision articles. Particularly Eurovision Song Contest § The "Big Four" and "Big Five" seems to be quite common. However, that section has been renamed quite a few times in the past, meaning that all those old section links are now broken. For this reason, per MOS:RDR, it is better to link to redirects such as Big Four (Eurovision) and Big Five (Eurovision), rather than the sections themselves, because then whenever that section gets renamed, you only need to update a few redirects rather than hundreds of articles. I recently got access to AutoWikiBrowser which can be used to make these kinds of fixes semi-automatically. I don't expect this to be very controversial given that it's already in the MOS, but it's in the rules of AWB to ensure there is consensus before making large-scale changes, so I thought I'd just check here beforehand. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Thanks for raising this with the project! I certainly think this is rather uncontroversial, so happy enough for you to proceed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you see a benefit in using {{anchor}} on the main ESC article so that it can use a set anchor name to find the section instead of a header title? That may be easier than what sounds like a double redirect. Grk1011 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That would also actually be a good idea, I'll do that too. It wouldn't be a double redirect by the way, just a link to a redirect. (A double redirect would be a redirect to a redirect which indeed is not allowed.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, a bit of a problem with that: the section has had a lot of different names. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm yeah that could be an issue. Could we maybe choose like one or two of the main ones? I'm not sure we need to cover every single eventuality or variation of the phrase, but maybe adding an anchor to "Big Four" and "Big Five" should cover most situations. That way there is a permanent link regardless of what the section is called, and we can change any links out there as and when we discover them to either the new anchor or the redirect as you suggested. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I've now added those two anchors. I guess we could also just fix those links whenever we come across them but I think it would be a lot easier to do this semi-automatically with AWB. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Very good point, anything we can do to automate the process would definitely help! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Other awards" on contest articles

Following on from a discussion on the ESC 2021 talk page, I think a discussion again on the inclusion of these "other awards" in ESC articles is warranted due to the new "Eurovision Awards" announced by the contest website for last year's contest. I think there has been some consensus that these new "awards" contravene notability guidelines, so their non-inclusion may be warranted; however this would put into question the other awards in this section, including the OGAE poll, the Marcel Bezençon Awards and the Barbara Dex Award, which may also fall foul on the notability front. I'm sure there's been some discussion on these awards at a WikiProject level before, however if there has it has been quite some time, and new consensus on this section in particular would be beneficial given this new addition. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes the somewhat pompous presentation was also raised by me at RFCs few times in past years, with posting my work for shorter paragraphs + winner, but got 3 editors participation, which included somewhat active Mr. Gerbear and mostly agreement. Another discussion about including at-all was held months ago and gained more participation, also with you and others support for coverage in notability's favour, to which I then pointed my old work [1], and following your agreement (except for tables removal) and no further comments for few days, implemented my shorter-paragraphs-old-work across the articles which you followed with tweaking the "other awards" tables afterwards.

This last discussion followed mine and Hhl95 2019-talk page agreement about false importance of top-5-tables and he too preferred my suggestion for a simple prose, which he then posted here, though still discussing points to remove. [2][3][4] However, also pointed his argument for alternative-reality as primarily based on the table as looking equal to the real results [5] and expressing again at least compromise for a prose [6]

Alucard 16 who opined even support for tables and that OGAE and other polls give a complete picture. [7], and BabbaQ [8][9], and mostly, all of what you said, eventually: Think the section adds another aspect…provide some relevance…enough publicity among the fandom…just top 5…right level of scope…a number of articles with this section promoted to GA [10]. Emphasized WP:WEIGHT which states viewpoints published by reliable sources "in proportion" and so the OGAE news it generates, even if not particularly reported externally. [11] that going to the extreme of just focusing on the contest without peripheral event misses full picture; and just text could be a compromise [12] then you commented to me you like my shortening; and I followed by implementing the shortened paragraphs.

So my view remains, and I simply agree with "Hh1 95" dismay from the tables, with Jochem van Hees dismay and your second thoughts – for the new big awards table as what triggered this current discussion, and especially agree with all your analyzation and others to generally "keep" from months ago, based on the same line of thought to also simply turn the new awards to a paragraph. So my original proposal for solely paragraphs seems a good satisfying compromise.

Will just highlight the cultural extent and thousands-to ten-thousands such fan polls circling, with different cultural tastes (as in ESC itself) combining to rank a favorite song/appearance, including the new awards; and that in several years such as 2008, OGAE was inducted within the "Marcel Bezencon Awards", so also handled by the Eurovision organisers. Also ping Grk1011 who viewed at 2021 ESC talk, and if "Hh1 95" wants to pursue discussion for removing.

Eventually, why I gather from all previous discussions and current situation that paragraphs+winner is the best solution. I whipped out a further tightened version on my sandbox. I understand if will be preferred to keep table for Marcel Bezencon. Also show 3 titles as all kinds of "achievements". One option with some awards background, and also runner-ups for the new awards aimed for 2-split rows bullets or a still much smaller table. Another option is further swift, and also prose for only "Eurovision awards" winners. So happy for inputs also on both versions at my sandbox, and so thank you both for bringing this up again. אומנות (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! I suppose my feelings on this generally are how notable are these organisations/awards and are we giving undue weight to these essentially fan awards. I'm not sure I can answer those questions, or if I know myself, but given there are countless fan sites and different awards out there which could be included, why have we chosen these ones in particular? Taking ourselves out of the fan-space as it were, and into a wider and more general space in terms of news coverage, would any of these awards be given that kinda air-time outside of the Eurovision bubble, and would we be able to back this up with sources from outside of the usual ESC-specific sites? If not then perhaps these awards don't deserve this level of coverage on these articles.

@אומנות: On another note I tried to access your sandbox to see your suggestions, however the link above doesn't work for me. Perhaps there was an issue with the link you pasted in? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Well sure, I also borough especially from your valid rationals (and others) from months ago, and invested in this myself in previous discussions with reworking the paragraphs, here's my sandbox [13]. For further notability+coverage:

• OGAE article demonstrates this (see "History" section): "establishing a strong relationship between national broadcasting companies and the marketing of the Eurovision Song Contest itself to a wider fan-base." And as I mentioned before the induction within the official Marcel Bezencon, later replaced by "The Composer Award" ("OGAE Contests" section) As also written before, that's in addition to the general inclusion for tens of thousands of people: 45 countries + 39 as "Rest of the world", that's fandom and tastes spanning 84 countries from all continents ("OGAE branches" section). Also Eurovision representatives attending and performing at OGAE events.
• OGAE on books about general popular culture and social studies: 1st google results page [14] discussing OGAE results on every annual edition of the "Complete and independent Guide to Eurovision" (also used as a source on many-many Wikipedia articles). Further, the general Books: "Fans and Fan Cultures: Tourism, Consumerism and Social...", "Case Studies in Crisis Communication: International ...", "Eurovision and Australia: Interdisciplinary Perspectives ..." further addressing specifically OGAE-Australia branch tastes and patterns. 2nd page results [15]: for example the book "Made in the Low Countries: Studies in Popular Music" which describes OGAE as "keeping the fire burning in between Eurovision editions". There are more pages.
• OGAE external news results: "Greek City Times" Mentions 43 awards won by 2005 Eurovision winner Helena Paparizu, including "1 OGAE Song Contest Award [16] another news site/TV channel, "atnews" with an article about OGAE voting or to join [17], Manchester (UK) news discussing OGAE fans and interviewing members after the 2020 contest cancellation [18] and the UK's The Guardian newspaper addressing interview with former president of OGAE-UK as for what he and OGAE-members think about past Eurovision results, in an article to seek big talents to represent UK for better results [19]. There are more pages.
• Barbara Dex Award article: shows this vote was addressed and explained also by American "CNN" news site, along with interviewing writers of Eurovision fansites [20]; and the official Eurovision website, operating under the contest's organizer, EBU, reports on this award-results every year [21].
• Ultimately, "OGAE" and "Barbara awards" having Wikipedia articles, further external coverage and with asociation with EBU-itself, yours and others valid rationals from months ago - significance, fandom, peripheral events for complete picture, and right balance in the article (even with their own sections/headers) which me and others and now including you and Jochem talking about "the level of coverage" as exaggerated (as sub-sections and tables and previous arguments from me and others for false "top-5" results); all these should further find satisfaction and compromise by pointing those 2 votes in 1-2 sentence and who won, which can therefore be combined in one paragraph. אומנות (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• 2 more things: "Eurovision awards" is in itself a gather of top fansites, which also justifies having its own paragraph, and still just max bullet points with runner-ups or a simple paragraph for only winner, and still separate paragraph as it's 10 categories winners. In any case the importance is shown at the 2021 ESC by pointing the top fansites and vote cast on the official Eurovision Instagram.
• And with veteran OGAE and Barbara Dex, so their coverage and ways of EBU-induction, and all articles thus far anyway have only these 2 fan votes, only these spanned thousands/ten-thousands people starting in the 1980s/1990s. And even if more covered organizations-votes show up in future editions, that's still goes with what I said in past years as well on my sandbox - 1-2 sentences for each still make a simple paragraph. אומנות (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@אומנות: Thanks for that! I hadn't realised the scope of coverage these awards had received previously. I would support your recommendation to include these awards with a very simple overview of just a paragraph explanation for each year these awards were held (Barbara Dex Award from 1997, and the OGAE awards and Marcel Bezençon Awards from 2002), explaining the concept and the eventual winner(s). For the Eurovision Awards I wouldn't expect a full point-by-point overview on winners/runners up since it's quite a large number of awards, but maybe just including an overview of what it is could work. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand how the Eurovision Awards were a gather of top fansites? Wasn't it just a poll on Instagram by the official Eurovision account? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: I believe the full process was shortlists for each category were determined through rankings by editors of different ESC news sites, with the winners/runners up determined by a poll of the top 5 in each category on Instagram. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm yeah in that case I do understand the argument for inclusion, although it doesn't have to be as detailed as it is now. @אומנות: sorry I probably should have looked at this before you started implementing it, but I did some minor copyediting on the Marcel Bezençon Awards section. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I realise I hadn't raised this point initially, but are there any thoughts on removing the top 5 tables for OGAE and Barbara Dex? I tend to feel that we could include a paragraph or sentence for these awards but having table breakdown of top 5 is perhaps too in depth for these articles. Thoughts? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: and @Jochem van Hees:, thank you too for looking at my comments-links, and sandbox. I now tightened "Marcel" and "OGAE" paragraphs as that's just a rephrasing of same info; as I kept Marcel's creators as Eurovision/EBU figures, and while OGAE already didn't have year-based for poll and organizers mention. After the previous discussion when I shortened the Marcel - also then it bugged me still for the "sweden's"/in contest"/"member of "Herreys"" repetitions with much parenthesis. I didn't shorten the Barbara Dex as I wanna make sure "sims2" that you prefer the 2nd option to also remove "award named after" and Barbara's history info? Jochem, you have thoughts about the 2 options? For the "Eurovision awards" I'm not sure about mentioning without saying the winners, maybe still just winners in 2 bullet-points rows? Also indeed can be added "top 5 shortlisted" to clarify as the base for instagram vote. Anyway if you tell me your preference if to remove Barbara's history then I will wait few days and didn't want to remove tables if others still didn't get a chance to comment. Added manually after edit conflicts.אומנות (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes "sims2" I just wanted to wait few days and started writing you but both of you posted before me eventually. :) So I still wanted to just post the previous comment as I originally wrote it, but sure you did raise before and I understood from the previous comments that we agree on removing the tables. This is also why earlier until now I made a bit of a ground work by both tightening "OGAE" section and also added who won, as part of the paragraph. Now the paragraph is in-itself so will be easier to differentiate from the table in order to remove. And even if other resist still, the paragraph can also still mention who won.

Jochem you read my mind with removing "contest" from Marcel Bezencon!! I literally thought about this and wished to remove it too, since I wasn't sure if it looks clear it's representative - at the contest. But thought it should be clear and further tightened. So thanks! Also thanks for replying about the overall still-inclusion of the awards (which my edit conflicted with yours) and for your tweaks, especially the "Contest" removal. :) Okay so you both support to remove "named after" and "years established" + Barbara award history until 2017? That's something I think we can do now. With the tables, I'm afraid for case they may still be disagreements from others who are active once in few days, so think it's best we wait few days. אומנות (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. I would agree with removing the history of the awards; if you want to know more about them you can go to the main articles about the awards. The prose in the Other Awards section should be only what is needed to understand the info presented (so what it is for, who awards it, and how the results are calculated).

I've taken a closer look at the two options now. I think though that, if we are showing the results, doing so in a small table or bulleted list rather than prose makes it a lot easier to read. Particularly the Eurovision Awards paragraph in option 2 is very dense. Also for the Eurovision Awards, I'd say only include the winner; the runner-up seems less relevant to me (also since they weren't shown in the results video), and it makes the list look a lot cleaner. Once you're trying to show three data points (award name, 1st place, 2nd place), a bullet list doesn't really work well anymore and a table would be a better option.

Looking at how the sources talk about the awards, with Barbara Dex most seem to only talk about the winner, whereas with OGAE most seem to show at least the top five. That seems quite logical to me actually, given that Barbara Dex is an award and OGAE is more like a poll. I'd suggest maybe doing the same on Wikipedia. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also tend to agree that we can remove the history bits of each award, especially since this is covered elsewhere and easily accessible through links. I would also agree, particularly for the Eurovision Awards since there are multiple winners and categories, that a bulleted list would work better to highlight the winners without delving into other nominees or the runners-up. I could also back including the top 5 for the OGAE poll, but I think in this instance I would prefer to keep this in prose rather than through a list or table; I think that way we strike the right balance of coverage of these awards. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in that I have read all of this and am in support of the direction it's going. Grk1011 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I made one article, Eurovision Song Contest 2021 or see revisions-differences here [22], to see first if that's what ya'll think is best, and took advantage to invite further participation via the summary there, since it's more dramatic change by content removal and this ongoing with or without tables; unlike the re-phrasing I made yesterday which kept-tightened all previous info.

On 2021 ESC, I'v kept for now year established as I think it shows the organizations veteran-span as a notability-layer in escorting the contest's history for ~20-+ years, still brief "handed since 2002", "created in 1997" and can intrigue further-click their articles, as to see history. To me the main problem was with "Barbara" 2017-organizer+2019-"award" changes. So by "created in 1997" then (as for this year) "handed by songfestival.be... for "most notable"... , separates establishment-year from current status, so breaks a need to add 2017/2019. Alternatively even adding created in 1997-"to rank "worst-dressed" artists and since 2019 handed by songfestival.be to the "most notable"..." still pretty short, far from the previous explanations, when I also removed singer status on the 2021 one.

Grk1011 thank you too for reading and supporting the general still-including yet shortening direction, but do you also have a preference for any option, or in general if with/without tables/bullets?

• Barbara Dex - Which do ya'll prefer: 1. without "created in 1997" (nor "handed since 2002" at Bezencon). 2. The way it's currently on ESC 2021. 3. The current with adding the "and since 2019".
• OGAE - I can understand the point of top-5 if many other-sites show it like this, I didn't see actual results coverage on external sites but rather general discussions about the organization or pointing winners (as with Helena Paparizu). If the top-5 self-published by OGAE/Branches sites articles (besides their full-list ones), I still don't manage to see importance as compared to 6th-downwards. Also Barbara and OGAE are eventually full-rank fan-votes, even if Dex has an actual award (never checked if/what it is and if anyone showed up especially to receive a "worst dressed"). If still top-5, I strongly prefer prose too: "top-ranked Malta, with second to fifth places rank for Italy, Switzerland, France and the Netherlands respectively". Only countries. Yesterday I implemented song+performer to further show independence from the table while repeating it's data, and as was for just winner.
• "Eurovision Awards" - yeah I also wrote on my previous comment I would support bullet points for winners only. On my sandbox also on the side, that I would support bullets or still much smaller table if mentioning runner-ups. I gave runner-ups as option since I thought the award's organization itself highlighted and published runner-ups as a special position. But I just saw it covered like this on the 2021 ESC article. And yeah Jochem you're right in that showing country - winner - runner-up as 3 pointers in bullets and split to 2 rows looks a-symmetrical. I support country-winner, in bullets. אומנות (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the 2021 article section, just copy-editing and tweaking the language a bit to make it a bit clearer and a bit less abrupt in places. I would say for the Dex awards to leave it simple and can leave out the change in ownership. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, here are my more detailed thoughts:

• Marcel Bezençon Awards are definitely notable to be included as they are part of the contest itself and awarded by organizers.
• OGAE - I'm leaning towards fully omitting. It's almost creating an alternative Eurovision. The contest already has a voting procedure so why is it significant that fan clubs that have a separate vote that sort of serves as a "fun fact"? How is it encyclopedic that "fans" prefer a different outcome on occasion?
• Barbara Dex Award - Awarded by a reputable fan site and a fun bit of trivia. Not sure of it's significance to the contest overall though. I feel like the award's page which lists the top each year is enough and that country in articles can include more detail about a specific year if they received the award.
• Eurovision Awards - Sanctioned by the contest itself, so that meets my personal inclusion criteria. I'd prefer no runners up as it feels too in depth (they didn't win). The table is rather large. Grk1011 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it was already pointed out by אומנות at the start of the discussion, and also in last year's discussion about OGAE, that there is quite a bit of coverage around OGAE and the Barbara Dex award, and I think it's relevant enough to provide some context on the reception of the entries. That is, as long as it does not get more weight than it deserves. So I think I could agree with removing the tables from the Other Awards section (except Marcel Bezençon), as they make the whole section unnecessarily big. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Sims2aholic8 and Jochem for the tweaks and coverage-pointing Jochem. I implemented the finalized Marcel Bezencon, but pointing you both on the edit-summaries, I accidentally typed you wrong "Sims2aholic8" (2017 ESC then copied without noticing backwards til 2014), apologies. Grk1011 thank you for sharing your thoughts. I asked you about of-if tables/bullets as I was under the impression you support including all after you wrote you read all above and our just-shortening direction.

• So now that I understand better, the encyclopedic-factor is for OGAE and Barbara independent Wikipedia-articles showing winners listings, and your point for inclusion in "country in year"; so a sentence and winner or even top-5 on annual articles, should be encyclopedic+proportionate. That's alongside EBU-associations and external coverage as Helena Paparizu's OGAE win. That also corresponds to OGAE starting "Fan Vote" within EBU's awards and maybe inspired them, so also appears within "Bezencon" at the 2002+2003 ESC Wikipedia articles, and as explained on it's own article here.
• As for alternative-results factor, I understand, it can't be significant as the actual result, but why it's covered (as on 2002+2003 ESC articles) under a clarified section. I also thought about editor "Hhl 95" views when I added OGAE's winner to the paragraphs, why I wrote: "also top-ranked the contest's winner", in cases it was the same. This also enables direct comparison and we can also add the actual contest's place the OGAE winner got when not the same.
• Sims2aholic8, I understand the separate 2 sentence at OGAE you did. Also other articles have bits for polls duration and how many members voted, which I also already tightened. I simply thought of one swift sentence as for a presentation later in one paragraph with Barbara Dex. I like the more accurate detailed explanation you added to Barbara Dex.
• I still however just replaced, on 2021 ESC article, with "this year", and with "top-ranked" for OGAE, as Barbara Dex remained, as the year is clear and "top-ranked" differentiate actual "winner"-term, which was also something bothering "Hhl 95" for views of alternative reality. And for Barbara Dex, I simply replaced with "performer" to eliminate "during their performance". Finally, I also added OGAE 2002 "Marcel Bezencon FAN VOTE" (as on OGAE article) as we show history bit for Barbara and Marcel, and as further reminder of its association with EBU. Hope that looks fine you can all feel free to copy-edit again, and I didn't implement further, also if more people in the next 2-3 days have other inputs for Dex and OGAE as Grk1011. אומנות (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made a few more tweaks to the 2021 articles, principally on the OGAE section, as I had a bit of a difficult time reading it in its previous form. There are times as well where it can be detrimental to shorten sentences and paragraphs down, as then it can lose meaning. I don't mind in principle us including more details if that makes things clearer, especially if we decide to remove the tables for all but Bezençon. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sims2aholic8 that overall also looks fine, as I also made further changes mainly the improvement to add the OGAE 2002 fan-vote start, as history+notability bit. I also agree with adding some details and meaning and with splitting sentences as there are indeed some more bits of OGAE polls in some years.

Just for Bezencon - "1984 contest", please understand, I would appreciate you would have said/tweak yesterday or acknowledge now, as we discussed 1984/1992-"contest" removal, and afterwards you added other tweaks. Why I then implemented "Bezencon" across 20 articles, crediting it with yours and Jochem's tweaks in the summaries. I'm okay with 1984 tweak, but don't see need to link, as the focus "Richard" (and Christer), are linked.

With that couldn't follow for OGAE, what was hard for you to follow, as you didn't specify. If it's the "started out as", it simply means changed position/status with time as is the case. As you just made minor change to "first held" and "in 2021" (though Dex also says "this year" still), that anyway works too.

"Eurovision Awards", which I never edited, looks okay, for your re-phrasing of your previous tweaks.אומנות (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing unsourced spokespersons and broadcast details

I have aspirations of improving many of our year articles, e.g. ESC 1956, ESC 1957 et al., but a main stopper of getting these up to GA or further in my opinion is the large amount of predominantly unsourced/unverifiable details on broadcasters, spokespersons and commentators. I'd like to do a tidy up of these sections and remove anything that cannot be independently verified through reliable sources, but as this would be quite a big change and would remove quite a bit of information I felt it best to raise it here for consensus first. I won't be going on a crusade to remove these bits just yet, but more through a natural progression as I improve each article these sections would be addressed and anything I cannot verify would be removed. Thoughts? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll also see if I can find some sources on them. However, the names of spokespersons are always announced during the live broadcast right? I think in that case it should be possible to cite the broadcast itself as a source, which I think would fall under WP:PRIMARY. Of course, secondary sources are still better, also because that makes it a lot quicker to verify it when someone randomly changes a spokesperson's name. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: It depends on the year really. With spokespersons this isn't an issue for more recent contests since the official website will almost always publish a list of all spokespersons in the days before the contest, but many older contests, especially before satellite in-vision announcements, the names weren't announced. In addition, many of the sources used at the minute to back up names of spokespersons and commentators I'm not sure would fall into the "reliable" bucket, e.g. random fan sites that are not independently verifiable, so it's a tricky area. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I say if you want to check if more material is available while focusing at each annual article at a time, as others and myself rearranged and enriched all material we could personally find or had time and energy to for 1956 ESC article for example, then by such process you also deeply search for broadcasters/commentators sources, and if you still can't find any reliable ones (but I agree with Jochem primary is also fine at this case) than unfortunately according to Wikipedia and BLP itself it should be eventually removed anyway and probably would at some point by someone.

Speaking of improving annual articles and their status, communicate also with both you and Jochem van Hees about lead-info at Eurovision Song Contest [23] which was removed (again) and "non participating" countries as in ESC 2019 [24], which keeps being removed/change (for 2-3 times now). You-Jochem changed back at ESC 2019-lead as "did not participate" per countries which never initially-registered and as I recall there was a discussion to name them as such, this keeps being changed to "withdrew" and maybe will across other annual articles. And as controversy-material which I added and we developed together "Sims2", more so political examples as enriched head chapters, which were evaluated also as improvement for GA, keeps being removed without explanation (and which few days ago I re-added with clarifying no "hateful" editing, and you "Sims2aholic8" sent me a "thank you" for). So also address this changes and current edit conflicts. And/or to see if anybody have a change of mind also to keep the removal/and "withdrew" changes for across annual articles.אומנות (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Jochem, I see you now you changed already again at 2019 ESC. Hope that sticks, would still like to see what you think for the main article issue. אומנות (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the ESC article thing, I don't get what the "hateful" thing is about, but I don't think the replacement is that bad. In any case I think it's better to discuss it at the talk page there, and with that editor. I do think you have good points about the sources though. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah Jochem van Hees it's the edit summaries tone (also in the past) and/or keeping reverting without summaries, as a collaboration problem and including annual articles. So at this chance when both you comment here and as a GA-article bit he completely removed (not just rephrased) (and his "hateful" comment was towards Sims2 previous phrasing), why I preferred to comment here briefly as I also dedicate the rest available time to "other awards"/songs-articles improving, so to see just here if you think there's point to simply restore, while I express support to remove data which can't be sourced, to improve articles in this scope to GA. אומנות (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss with the editor in question. I think the thing with that in particular is it took us a long time to settle on that wording in particular for us to get the article up to GA, hence the hesitance now to any changes. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't mind if people discuss and decide to change or even remove, also for this I asked if you changed your mind, maybe. Some things we did together in the lead were indeed discussed thoroughly and took few takes. But this particular controversy-criticism section was actually swift. I just added then this paragraph including those political examples to enrich and not just say "political issues" in too generic manner, and then you edited and added to it in different way once-twice, we both liked the combined result, and that was it. My issue was the complete removal of sentences without explanations and while he put "ethnic fusion" as only under popularity which doesn't reflect the article's sections, maybe tried to spin the lead to look more positive. And the repeated "aggressive and hateful" summaries towards your previous phrasing... which I tried explaining once, then he changed again, repeated "it was hateful"... and changing Jochem's edits to "withdraw" on other articles, I felt raising this here if it's worth restoring it to not get into an edit war. Glad you restored, as now I know it's still worth for you too to keep it similar to before.

I just removed the "In recent years" which was on previous versions as vague and changes with time, as Jochem did before ("since 2000s") , but I removed time completely since voting-patterns suspicions always exited in the contest, like in 1963 and such. אומנות (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Christer Björkman

One thing I've noticed is that in the Marcel Bezençon Awards section across all pages that it's featured in, Christer Björkman is referred to as the former Swedish Head of Delegation, irrespective of the year an ESC page is concerned. Given that he had stepped down only after ESC2021, I would suggest only applying the term starting with the ESC2022 page onwards.--Pdhadam (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but that's when looking in "the present" of each year, just as the problem was "current"-Head of Delegation as that's subject to change and did. When "former" was added to 2021 ESC, I implemented it from the 2002 article because the intro sentence is a timeless-definition; as the definition describe as "held since 2002" from present perspective, and as we always write in past tense on Wikipedia from present perspective-knowledge. On the same line, the award always remains created by a person who is now by definition a "former" Head..." That's how I see it. Another example, if the award would be terminated now, we would also add: "organised since 2002 until 2021" (even "until 2021" for 2002+2003 articles which describe "for the first/second year") in retrospect, as a definition, timeless. אומנות (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought about another thing, first wanted to add that it then looks as saying that he is still "Head of Delegation" today, when you read 2002...2021 articles (based on what I wrote above). With that, I now thought about replacing with "by THEN Head of Delegation", though it can look as though he was only Head of Delegation in 2002, however as the definition relates to describe the beginning year of the award, I can also support "then". אומנות (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In agreement with your solution. "then-Swedish Head of Delegation" should be applicable in that case.--Pdhadam (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, yeah I think it's also better as specifying he was in this position in 2002 while "former" may seem as he was in this position before 2002, and no more by 2002. Though "then-Sweden's head" will work best to further relate to the following "1992 representative". Is that okay with you? If so, you can implement across the articles if you want. אומנות (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Sweden's then-Head of Delegation and 1992 representative" would be the better phrasing in that vein. If that's alright with you, I'll apply the change.--Pdhadam (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pdhadam I too thought "Sweden's then-head..." is better but from your previous "then-Swedish" I thought you would prefer same order for "then-Sweden's". So I'm fine with your above suggestion. Sure go for it. אומנות (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Country link in "country in the contest year" articles

I noticed that in pages like Italy in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, IvanScrooge98 has been using {{Esccnty}} to link to Italy in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest in the lead. I have simply been linking to the article about the nation itself, Italy. Personally I think that linking there would be more useful to the reader, especially for lesser known countries, since otherwise you need to do two clicks in order to find out where it even is on the map. But I'm wondering what others think of it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I’m sorry, I probably should have seeked consensus here first. I have done the same with articles for the 2022 adult contest. My rationale is that although more useful for people looking for basic info on the country, such links are much less relevant to the context: after all when referring to a “country” taking part in ESC we are actually talking about its broadcaster’s delegation rather than, say, the Italian Republic, and having the main country article already linked in the infobox is imo more than enough. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(Maybe we could, alternatively, include a small location map in “[country] in the [Junior] Eurovision Song Contest” articles if it’s not too cumbersome). 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Now that I think about it more I actually think that the links should be swapped; the infobox should link to the esc country, and the lead to the country itself. That's because in the lead you are introducing the topic: who's participating? Well Italy with their broadcaster RAI, but if I still don't know what that's referring to, then that's what the links are for. I think that if I want to know about Italy all the way in the lead, I'd probably want to know more about Italy itself and not about the broadcaster's participation in the contest.

At the same time, the infobox is more like a collection of structured data, and then having "Italy" link to the broadcaster's participation absolutely makes more sense. It is also more consistent; everywhere when you see a flag next to a country name like that, it is using the {{Esc}} template and they all link to "[country] in the Eurovision Song Contest" – so why not in this infobox. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the lead should link to the country itself since link targets should be obvious to the reader per WP:EASTER. Within the infobox though, I would agree that having it go to the country in article seems reasonable. Grk1011 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say WP:EASTER really applies here though, since the titles themselves provide the context. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 16:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also tend to agree that linking to the country itself in the lead makes more sense, and that it would be more beneficial to readers to place it there compared to the infobox; it does also make sense to me to reformat the infoboxes to link to the "country in contest" articles, given this is where a lot of the contest-specific data, including song and artist etc., is found. There might be a bit of work needed in that case to modify the box and then the articles to ensure the right article is being linked (e.g. Junior articles) if the default is to link to the "in ESC" articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I created an edit request at Template talk:Infobox song contest national year § Change country link. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I see this has gone live now, which is great and looks good! One thing I have noticed is regarding Macedonia/North Macedonia articles prior to 2019, where the links are pointing to Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest which is now a redirect to North Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Is there a potential to create a work-around in the template to allow us to specify where the link to point to, or would that create too much work? Similarly, thinking specifically around 2018/2019, where the Year section links to a redirect as well, i.e. the Macedonia in 2018 article linking to a redirect of North Macedonia in 2019 and vice versa. Again perhaps there is too much work to tweak the template but thought I would raise this here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Evrovidenie

Hi everyone! Evrovidenie is currently going through a Good Article review and the reviewer is requesting the article be copy-edited, which could take a long time if done by a third party. I was hoping if anyone had time they could give it a read through? I plan to take a look myself soon, but the more eyes the better! Grk1011 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just did a bunch of copyediting, but you're right it can do with more eyes. Good idea to post here. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Renaming Melodifestivalen "Semi-finals" to "Heats"

Hey, there's a discussion going on at the Melodifestivalen 2022 talk page regarding the renaming of the first four semis of Mello to "Heats" as per their different Swedish word (Deltävling) compared to the 5th show called "Semifinalen". Feel free to come discuss your opinion if you want :) —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 23:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, i think that heats is the right word. Europe2016 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Countdown

There are 10 events in the countdown, and 9 of them either have already happened or will never happen. It needs to be fixed. I suggest to add Eurovision Young Musicians 2022 and Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022. Europe2016 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those have set dates though. There isn't anything to count down to. Grk1011 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the links to at least reflect the most recent contests. The countdowns can be fixed once the dates are known. Grk1011 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed many of the older contests where there is no news of an upcoming edition, and added the American contest which starts next month. As such the countdown now takes up only one row for the time being, and we can always add further contests whenever we get more information. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Makes sense. I sort of hastily updated it without putting much thought into it. Thanks also to @Jochem van Hees: for catching my flag update oversight! Grk1011 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus required on List of Eurovision Song Contest winners

Following a discussion on the "List of Eurovision Song Contest winners" talk page, I'm hoping we can agree consensus on the columns featured in this list. User:Darren.enlight recently added in a new column outlining the number of entries per year, and there has recently been other changes made to include countries which came second, margin of victory etc., and I feel a project-wide consensus here would help to guide future edits/reverts as necessary. I personally believe that this list should focus solely on the contest winners, including countries, entries, performers and songwriters, and that columns pertaining to other information are superfluous to this list and already covered elsewhere, e.g. in the History of the Eurovision Song Contest article and the lists of Eurovision Song Contest entries. Eager to hear the thoughts of other project members on this and agree to a structure, as given this is a FL it is meant to be a showcase for what we can achieve as a project. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sims2aholic8, thank you so much for opening this entry! I added in the column about number of entries. I think the list as it is now (containing Year, Host City, Date, Winning country, Song, Performer(s), Songwriter(s), Language, and Points) is great, but it is missing the number of entries as a matter of context (context a bit similar to giving the host country of the contest that year, even though that too is given in a different list). As ESC has grown extensively, the contest has developed and back in 1956 it was not the same as the contest held in 2016, with the number of entries being a big indicator of this. It gives better context to the development of the contest over the years, as well as to what it means when one country wins out of 7 (with 2 entries per country) versus out of one country winning out of 43. They both matter, but people will probably be looking for this context or find it helpful to better understand the win. I do feel like this should be included as it is pertinent to understanding the win itself. I also can say that when Googling a list of ESC winners and getting this one, which is probably the most common way someone might come across this list, the fact that there's other lists offering information that can better illuminate the win is less likely to be immediately available to the average reader, nor is it comfortable, even if they find the other lists, to go back and forth between the lists and compare them in order to have a better idea for the context of each win. So, that's why this is the one column I would add. Darren.enlight (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My first thought was that this was unnecessary as it's info about the contest, not the victory, so something I'd expect to see at History of the Eurovision Song Contest § Competition overview and not in the winners table. But then I realised that the two tables already share quite a bit of info such as the host city and date, and it also seems logical to me to have that info in the table, and tbh I don't think that the number of entries is that different. It provides context for the win and it doesn't get in the way of anything. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardizing country in ESC template heading

The templates for countries in Eurovision have inconsistent headings. Some like Template:Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest have headings that look like {{flagicon|Country}} [[Country in the Eurovision Song Contest]]. Other templates like Template:Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest feature a heading like {{Esc|Country}} in the Eurovision Song Contest. Which one should style should become the standard.

If you don't understand what I mean I'm willing to clarify. Tai123.123 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't noticed. I think making the link text the same as the target article would make sense, so I'd go for Armenia's format. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would concur that the whole title should be linked, given that that is the title of the target article as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I just hadn't gotten around to changing the rest of them yet. Grk1011 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grk1011 I can fix these tomorrow as I’ll have free time Tai123.123 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grk1011 Finished! Tai123.123 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

One minor tweak to raise. We should probably use {{flagdeco}} rather than {{flagicon}}, as there's no real benefit to linking the flag to the article on the country when we have the link to their ESC participation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8, I finished switching from icon to deco, I'll do the same to the JESC templates tomorrow Tai123.123 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

Could someone who followed the Alina Pash controversy and understands what happened update the page. I would but I don't understand everything that happened. Tai123.123 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

More info added and the controversy is now finished. --Pdhadam (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Also requesting further editing protection measures as there's a full on invasion happening, meaning that disruptive edits are expected. --Pdhadam (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pdhadam I think you should expand the lead with 2022 stuff Tai123.123 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Including languages without sources in "country in contest" articles

I refuse to get caught up in an edit war over this, so raising this issue to the wider WikiProject in the hopes of gaining some consensus and a path forward. Brobbz has added language columns to several of the 2022 "country in contest" articles (e.g. Croatia, France, Slovenia), and while I do not dispute the accuracy of the information they have added provided here, this information is not backed up by reliable and verifiable sources per Wikipedia policy, and so therefore I removed these columns per the guidance on unsourced content, as in my opinion this would be classified as original research and, although this information is true to the best of my knowledge, nonetheless on Wikipedia the truth requires sources. In some back-and-forth between Brobbz and myself, guidance on when a source or citation may not be needed has been brought up, specifically around statements where the average adult would recognise at the truth, and material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. While I can appreciate this argument, and as previously stated I would personably believe that the languages included are correct, I'm not sure that this would apply here given the sometimes subjective nature of languages (e.g. how to differentiate between Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin). I'm welcome to be proved wrong on this, and if there is a broad consensus that these pieces of fact can remain then I will comply on this, but ultimately to avoid confrontation and to deescalate the situation I'd like input from the wider project. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that Wikipedia doesn't require you to cite that the sky is blue or that the capital of France is Paris. According to the link on original research that you sourced, neither these statements nor the language sections count as original research, because they're not something I simply thought up and they easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Brobbz (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saying though, aren't basically all language columns we have unsourced? The only time I see people add a source is when the song isn't yet released. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: For the main Eurovision articles these are covered by sources to either Diggiloo Thrush, 4Lyrics or the official website. And while we don't reference every single instance of a language in these tables they are covered by references in an indirect way via these sites. It is also a criteria which has come up when bringing an article up to GA status (e.g. Andorra and San Marino in Eurovision). I suppose for me personally I'm not sure with this where the line is between an obvious fact and something that needs to be sourced, especially for certain countries where language could be a touchy subject, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we have listed songs as having been performed in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian when in essence these can be considered as the same language, so how do you differentiate in this case? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh right, forgot about those. I guess we should just follow what it says on WP:V: anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced. So if it's obvious that a song is in English, then I think it's fine to use the song itself as the source (even if it doesn't explicitly say it's in English). But if it's not as obvious to everyone what language it is in, such as with Serbo-Croatian songs, then there should be a source confirming it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That's right Jochem. I think in this case that specific phrase is important. Sims has clearly challenged the material being added and was responded to with "Listen to the songs". The average reader is not a linquist. Any time a response is "trust me", we should be skeptical. It is also highly likely that @Brobbz: is correct, but there are so many scenarios where we may not know and as an encyclopedia, making it up ourselves is not an option. Also important to note is that WP:BLUESKY (you don't need to cite that the sky is blue) is only an essay, not a guideline, and is in fact countered by a competing essay you do need to cite that the sky is blue. Grk1011 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Error with junior yearly contest infoboxes

There is an error in the infoboxes of the "Country" in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest "Year" articles as when you like the previous/next year arrows you are taken to the equalivent adult pages. For example if you click the left arrow at the bottom of Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 you are taken to Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 not Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019. If this doesn't make sense I can explain it in further replies. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops, that was probably my fault. I created an edit request to fix it. Thanks for pointing it out. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Map of the singers' local origins" on Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest

Can we get a WikiProject consensus for this recent addition to the Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest article? Including the original creator, User:Kahlores, for visibility. While I do think it's certainly an interesting addition, I'm not sure if it fits with the article, or how useful it is within this context. It also raises questions on conformity with other articles, if we were to replicate this, as although all artists which have represented Ukraine in the contest were born or originate in Ukraine, this is not the same for other countries; there is no rule stating that artists must be of the country they represent and many countries have been represented by artists from across the world. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, but more on the WP:TRIVIA side of information. Is it relevant what cities the entrants were born in?. Grk1011 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to know where in the country the artist is from can find this information on the artist's page. -- AxG / ✉  17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The intent of this map was to show which culture each singer represents, since Ukraine is such a diverse country.

In three cases the birthplaces were other soviet republics, so I chose the place in Ukraine where they were raised instead. This seems to work well as a measure of cultural origin.

It matters a lot. National selections are in fact heavily politicized, something which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Sources: (2022) (2019)

For instance, from the Western part comes Ruslana, who later became an MP; GreenJoly, whose political lyrics had to be edited; and this year's Kalush. Singers coming from Russian-speaking areas are, unsurprisingly, less likely to have sung a political message.

Naturally, this type of map is of little interest in countries that are smaller or homogenous. Kahlores (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Grk1011? Kahlores (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with Grk1011 on this. I think it is certainly interesting information, especially from the context you are adding to this talk page, but I'm not sure how encyclopaedic it is. Yes there are certainly political aspects to previous Ukrainian entries in the contest, but there's nowhere on the article that links where a person was born or raised to the fact that there are more likely to be "political" entries from those regions, and to me seems to be more conjecture than fact. There are also I believe too many exceptions for this to be a rule or something that can be proven, and additionally the points you are making above are not backed up by reliable sources which would therefore warrant the inclusion of the map in this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We could definitely find sources for the assertion that the Ukrainian selection is heavily politicized, starting with the two I gave the other day. Most sources are likely to be in Ukrainian/Russian, though. Perhaps I could write a subsection about it, instead of letting people guess what I mean by this map.

In fact, the national selection has specific rules over political issues and symbols. Just in the last 6 national selections, two songs were withdrawn over disagreements about trips to Russia, and one, "1944" by Crimean Tatar Jamala, has a clear political message, unlike the other silly love songs. Kahlores (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Ukraine's Eurovision selection process has not had political moments in the past, and certainly that would be relevant information for this article and the related articles on political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest and Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. However this is a separate point to the map which was added, and unless there are sources linking where an artist came from to any political controversies that they were a part of at Eurovision or in the selections, then including the map in this proposed section would border on subjective information and trivia that can't be backed up in this encyclopaedic setting. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)