Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

Relegated countries on maps

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

It makes perfect sense! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense, but I'd rather opt for a shade of red rather than blue, as blue would indicate some sort of participation — IмSтevan talk 04:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I think since red is associated on other maps with competing in a semi-final or other qualification show, personally I would steer clear of this on these maps. I tried a few different shades before landing on this light blue because when I tried other colours with lighter shades I felt that this shading ended up being the more dominant colour on the map. A lighter shade of blue sorta makes sense to me as well given that the countries didn't compete not because of their decision but because of previous contest results prevented them from taking part, so another shade of blue sorta keeps a link with contest participation but without it being clear through a dark shade that they actually competed if that makes sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that's useful. They didn't participate in the end so why bother. Yoyo360 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
They didn't participate because they couldn't and not because they necessarily chose to. It's about creating a distinction between countries that probably would have participated if they had the opportunity vs. countries that previously participated but purposefully chose not to compete the following year. In my opinion it also gives the reader more information in a concise way within the infobox than just stating the non-participating countries but without explaining the distinction. Looking at the map in tandem with the list of countries in the infobox you get a better sense of the reasoning behind why these countries did not participate at a glance, just as you would get with maps from 2004 onwards with countries eliminated in the semi-finals. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8 Well I don't agree. It's the exact same as highlighting countries that pulled out late. We should highlight what happened, not being like "these countries would probably have participated was it not for their relegation". Yoyo360 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yoyo360: By shading relegated countries we are highlighting exactly what happened. These countries were relegated, they were unable to take part, and that is backed up by multiple sources, which specifically state that these countries were prevented from taking part. I think coupling relegated countries with every other country that didn't take part would be painting a less clear picture to the reader about the situation in those years. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It makes sense. But red is consistent however, as countries eliminated in Kvalifikacija za Millstreet are also marked red. I'm still of the opinion that light red is the way to go here — IмSтevan talk 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
That does make sense as well. To test this out I've changed the shading within the test file above to a shade of pink. Let me know your thoughts. I think I still prefer the light blue but the pink here isn't too overpowering in my opinion so it could work. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I have similar feelings. Both look fine but I also prefer the blue shade. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah the light red is just not it, it blends too well with the non participants and the background. What about the red we use for NQs? — IмSтevan talk 10:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to use the same shade as on the maps for 1993, 1996 and 2004 onwards. I feel that should be reserved only for cases where a country actually selected an entry that was in the competition. Using it for other meanings I think would lead to confusion. I know that 1993/1996 and 2004-present are different situations, but for all of these years the eliminated countries had entries, whether we count them officially or not, which is not the case with relegation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: @Sims2aholic8 Can Macedonia truly be considered relegated in 1997 ? They NQed in 96 but that did not count as a participation in the eyes of the EBU and they are not named in the source as relegated, so should they be light blue, light grey or dark grey ? Yoyo360 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Tables for semis

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

First semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024
Draw Country Artist Song Place Points
1  Croatia Baby Lasagna "Rim Tim Tagi Dim" 1 1063
2  Cyprus Silia Kapsis "Liar" 15 123
3  Ireland Bambie Thug "Doomsday Blue" 4 765
-  Sweden Marcus & Martinus "Unforgettable" Pre-qualified for the final
4  Lithuania Silvester Belt "Luktelk" 3 675
5  Poland Luna "The Tower" 11 200
6  Serbia Teya Dora "Ramonda" 9 301
7  Ukraine Alyona Alyona and Jerry Heil "Teresa & Maria" 12 199
8  Australia Electric Fields "One Milkali (One Blood)" 10 199
-  United Kingdom Olly Alexander "Dizzy" Pre-qualified for the final
9  Azerbaijan Fahree "Love Love Peace Peace" 13 105
10  Finland Windows95man "No Rules!" 9 342
11  Iceland Hera Björk "Scared of Heights" 5 630
12  Luxembourg Tali "Fighter" 2 999
13  Moldova Natalia Barbu "In the Middle" 12 150
14  Portugal Iolanda "Grito" 6 592
15  Slovenia Raiven "Veronika" 3 807
-  Germany Isaak "Always on the Run" Pre-qualified for the final

Thoughts? — IмSтevan talk 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The AQs are not entries in the semi-finals, so I don't think they should be included alongside semi-final participants. Grk1011 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
But they kinda are? Performing in the semi-final amongst all the other acts, they have been drawn to be in that semi, the producers will decide where in the running order they'll come, they are competing entries of ESC 2024; so how are they any different other than the fact that you can't vote for them and that they're prequalified for the final? — IмSтevan talk 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Grk1011. These entries are not competing in the semi-finals, so I don't believe they should be included within these tables. These tables' primary purpose is specifically the results of the shows; yes they are within the "Contest overview" section, and so all aspects of the show should be included within prose, however the tables do not need to contain every aspect of the show. We don't have rows for "flag parade" or "interval act 1" etc. as an example. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I knew there'd be a time when I agree with you. They're competing in the Final, not the Semi Final, so inclusion would not just confuse, it might mislead. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Seconding these replies. Doesn’t add anything but rather confuses. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I concur. It does confuse me a bit. They're not in the semi, so why add them? Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 07:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I very much support this idea, especially since the official Eurovision channels acknowledged these being part of the running order in the reveals today. Usually these draw reveals also indicate the recap, so if during the contest they are also part of the recap, then that would be even more reason to add them.
I disagree with it being confusing as they are literally entries being performed in the semi-finals; the only difference is that they automatically go though to the final. If the EBU decides that these countries get to perform in the semis (which is already confusing enough), then in my opinion it should also be somehow reflected in these tables.
Here is my suggestion for now, and in the score columns I would put dashes (but that's my nitpicking). — TheThomanski | t | c | 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
While the EBU has included the automatic finalists within the running order in the social media posts, they are not included on the official website's semi-final scoreboard pages, which are the equivalent of the results tables on the 2024 article. These tables are principally for the results of the shows, we don't have rows for any others acts performing, so why should we include rows in this case just because they are competing entries in a different show? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with ImStevan here. They're essentially part of the running order as acts actually performing, and per the points above. It's a much better way to include them than to just have in text form "yeah they're performing between song X and song Y" at the top, three times. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
No different than an interval act. They're performing, but not competing in the semi-final. The table seeks to show the results of the semi-final. Grk1011 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Completely disagree with you on the first part of that; they're clearly not the same as interval acts, which as I recall are performed after the songs are over rather than in the middle of them. I maintain my opinion that it looks dreadful to have a long verbiage of who they're performing before and after atop the table instead of just including them. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording is a bit cumbersome, but at the same time, as Grk1011 said, the purpose of the table is different—otherwise we would just have a numbered list—and I believe including the non-competing acts is more confusing than anything. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Tried to slim the phrasing down a bit by replacing the country names with their running order. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
While I still believe they should be in the table, I support this endeavour to make the wording a bit less clunky. Could we even cut it down to just the entry they perform after? It does still look a bit funny to me but it'd be better than the previous version for sure. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Ser. Yes, that could be another valid option. Let’s see if someone else has objections or proposals. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this point. Toffeenix (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Adding on, I think it makes complete sense to include them in the table and adds extra context for the reader. -77.102.82.71 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Adding an explanation of what the abbreviation R/O means

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

As I was saying, I totally get the reasoning, being a mobile user myself. The problem is that this issue is much wider and affects mobile display as a whole – and thus all instances of {{abbr}}. If we added notes for all of them, it would be messy; so even if we agree that some degree explanation is worth providing this way to mobile readers, we need to discuss what we should indicate and what not. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Good point. I think that the abbreviation such as ref. are way less crucial for readers to get the nessecary out of reading the articles, so I think we could either just let them keep being abbreviation with no explanation, or add an explanation of what that abbreviation stands for. Thomediter (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, however the difference here is that on the UEFA article the labels the key refers to are links, and not abbreviations that are used in these tables. I know they also explain on the UEFA article where they do have abbreviations, however I think adding the labels key in the way you did previously is rather messy. I've tried to incorporate this explanation within the prose in a better way, similar to how it was done on the UEFA article. This information was actually completely missing from the article before anyway, so it's good that we've added it now! Let me know your thoughts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I definitely like it better, Sims. Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Clifford Brown (Eurovision)#Requested move 6 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Clifford Brown (Eurovision)#Requested move 6 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Maps on periphery articles

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

It does make sense to remove the maps, especially if info on the broadcasts is unclear. On the other hand, we could keep them and change their focus to countries whose songs “participated” in the shows, aligning with the header “participation map”—especially for Congratulations which had a winner. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I can see the logic behind that too. My problem would be that for Congratulations there were two songs from Ireland and the UK, and two artists from Denmark and Sweden in Greatest Hits, so the number of participants would be different from the number of countries. Perhaps that's not as much of an issue though? I just feel the maps make sense when it's an actual competition with actual performances, but any other case there's probably no need. Even with Congratulations when there was an actual competitive event there weren't that many actual performances on stage by the actual artists to really justify a participation map imo. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I see the point. I just thought that would have been at least a more consistent usage of the map—after all, songs from different countries are taking part, even if some countries have multiple “entries”. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure the maps are as useful for those events. They're move celebratory than competitive and probably should be using {{Infobox television}} or maybe even {{Infobox concert}}. Grk1011 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That's actually a good point as well. It may make more sense to move to a different infobox template entirely, given that in the majority of cases these aren't even song contests in the normal sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

ESC Reporter

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

ESC 2025 Map

Hey @ImStevan: You did not allow overwriting of the 2025 map. I wanted to add back San Marino and Malta and take away Luxembourg but I can't. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done — IмSтevan talk 03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Media

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

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

Some help at Eden Golan requested

Hello WikiProject Eurovision,

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

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

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

Thank you for reading,

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

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

Eurovision 2025 - When a country announces an event that historically has been used to specifically to choose its representative for Eurovision, it's a safe bet that they're going to be there.

In example - I've noticed that with Spain and Norway announcing Benidorm Fest and Melodi Grand Prix, instead of interpreting it as the country will participate in the upcoming edition, we just write it down into the other countries column.

In my opinion, if a brodcaster announces an national selection will be held, and that - that national selection historically always has been used to find the representative of Eurovision, we can consider it a confirmation that the country will participate. I understand that with i.e. Sanremo, the history isn't that it's always used to find the eurovision participant, so an announcement of Sanremo 2025 wouldn't mean Italy will certainly compete in Eurovision 2025. But when songwriting camps for Melodi Grand Prix 2025 is announced, and we have written on it's page that "It determines the country's representative for the Eurovision Song Contest, and has been staged almost every year since 1960.", the announcement of Melodi Grand Prix 2025 means Norway's participation at Eurovision 2025 is assured. Thomediter (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If the source does not state that it is considered a confirmation, then it should not be included, but they should be mentioned below the participation table, as those song contests and Eurovision have a close connection. The examples you stated would constitute original research — IмSтevan talk 11:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
2024 United States presidential election - look at this - here we also include something 99% certain, but not 100%. If an event specifically made for selecting the Eurovision participant is announced, it definitely means that the country will take part in the contest. Thomediter (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
There is extensive coverage that the election will happen, nothing in there is original research — IмSтevan talk 00:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

AQs in semis

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

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

Netherlands 2024 disqualification

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

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

Jury results

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

Requested move

An editor has requested that Nemo (rapper) be moved to Nemo (singer), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Location" sections

The "Location" section of the contest articles is usually formatted somewhat awkwardly on desktop, with the text sandwiched between the infobox, the image of the host venue, and the location map. The "Bidding phase" subsection also has to awkwardly incorporate a table and another map, sometimes around the infobox. You can see the issue in the 2024, 2023, and 2022 articles.

Is there any way we can move things around to improve the layout? Some suggestions to start with:

  • Move the venue image elsewhere, possibly to "Production"
  • Removing the cities which expressed interest but did not bid from the bidding table.
  • Remove the bidding table entirely, since it's mostly a repetition of the prose.
  • Inserting the wikitext (I forget what it is) which forces a break between the end of the infobox and the start of the first section. This would create a significant amount of white space.
  • Reducing the length of the infobox. Probably not possible?
  • Putting the map and images in gallery format at the bottom of the section, if possible.

A.D.Hope (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed broadcaster references

It has come to my attention that in a number of "contest per year" pages ranging from 1956 to the 1980s at least, some references about broadcasters, particularly Austria and Monaco, have been removed. The reason behind those edits, albeit carried out by respectable members of the WikiProject, remains unclear in my eyes as the edit summaries don't give sufficiently information on these reasons.

Were the references quoted (particularly eurovision.tv) deemed not good enough for proving the broadcast itself (in which case a "better source needed" or "source needed" could have been added instead to clarify)? Were any references for these particular countries deemed unnecessary since participating broadcasters were required to broadcast the contest anyway and Austria and Monaco only had one television channel at that time? Or is there any other reason?

Sorry for not being able to read thoughts of other editors. Clear and unambiguous edit summaries or a topic on this very talk page for edits on such a large scale would be helpful. Thank you! EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I had originally added these references maybe a year or two ago when I took it upon myself to clean up these sections. Previously there was a lot of unsourced information related to the channel and commentators, which I subsequently removed and have retained only the information which was verifiable. You can still see much of the old, unsourced and unverified information on the country in contest articles, which I have also intentions to completely clean up. The inclusion of these refs was before the participants tables were added to the article, so before then there was no place to actually provide information on the participating broadcaster at the top level.
I believe that Bray0829's intentions with removing these references is that they don't actually provide any information on the specific channel/commentator, and that as you correctly state for some of these countries at that time there was only one television station on which the contest could be broadcast. There is a slight WP:SYNTH issue with this approach, given that it's predicated on the assumption that by participating the broadcasters are required to show the contest live on television, which is why I included the eurovision.tv refs as a way to verify the broadcaster in those countries.
Ultimately I'm not sure what the best approach would be to these countries where a specific ref showing the channel is not available; given we now have the participants table showing the participating broadcaster for each country we could approach the broadcasts table in the same way as for non-participants and simply remove those rows where no direct reference is available to verify the broadcast channel; in the case of Eurovision Song Contest 1960#Broadcasts as an example this would mean removing the rows for Austria and Monaco entirely. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I’m not 100 % sure either how to deal with that case.
Since the section always includes the sentence “Known details on the broadcasts in each country (...) are shown in the tables below”, a removal of the rows lacking any references would be okay, in my opinion. It is, after all, a table showing where and on which channels the contest actually was broadcast – not a table showing where it had to be broadcast according to the official rules.
Online sources for Austrian and Monegasque TV listings and newspapers are unfortunately very rare in the early years. But printed sources exist and their TV programs sometimes also are printed in German (for Austria) and French (for Monaco) periodicals at that time. It only takes time and energy to request and go through all that material in various libraries. Replacing the references with “citation needed” templates would mean that some contest pages will have these templates in the broadcast tables for many years. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that "citation needed" templates could be counterproductive and possibly mean that the information would remain unsourced for quite a long time. I think removing the rows entirely is possibly the best course of action at this moment, especially that given my push to get these articles to GA it's likely that this may be something that could crop up during the review and possibly derail it, or at least raise questions by the reviewer. A lot of the later Austrian broadcasts are covered by German/Swiss references, and occasionally Austrian references in Slovene which are accessible through Slovene online portals, however it's tricky to find Monegasque references since the broadcasts from Monaco would only reach a small section of France and possibly Italy. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, agree with removing the concerned rows when no other suitable reference can be found for the moment. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Broadcast info for "former" countries on present-day country articles

Given the cache of new Czechoslovak broadcast information which has recently surfaced, it got me thinking about how this information is currently presented within the "country in contest" articles with regards to contests broadcast in former countries. Right now the broadcasts of the contest between 1965 and 1992 within Czechoslovakia is currently duplicated at both Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons and Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons, even though neither country is considered a successor state in international law, and the fact that legally Česká televize and Slovenská televízia, the two broadcasters which eventually went on to participate in Eurovision, are legally distinct from the now defunct Czechoslovak Television [cs; sk].

The same situation is also present at Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators_and_spokespersons for broadcasts in the former Soviet Union by Soviet Central Television (CT USSR), which was succeeded by several different broadcasters, among which the former Programme One eventually became the former EBU member broadcaster Channel One Russia. However we also know that Eesti Televisioon broadcast the contest from at least 1986 but this information is not included at Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons.

This also raises the question about how best to approach the various broadcasts in Yugoslavia, as although Yugoslav Radio Television was the participating broadcaster for Yugoslavia between 1961 and 1992, each individual constituent republic had its own broadcaster as a member of the umbrella org, which aligns with the current EBU member broadcasters in each country. While there are many gaps in broadcast history for some of these countries, the broadcasts by what is now Radiotelevizija Slovenija and Hrvatska radiotelevizija are very detailed, however these are not currently included at Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons and Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons.

There's probably a job to be had with all of the broadcast tables across these articles, as many of them are largely unsourced, as well as a question about how best to structure these tables going forwards, since on many articles the tables have become very unwieldy; this however is a different conversation for another time. Right now I'd like to get thoughts on the matter above and to agree on a way forward which is consistent for all articles and situations. In my mind we could either add all relevant broadcast details for former countries to the article on the present-day country, which would mean adding any confirmed broadcasts from those broadcasters which align with the current broadcasters of present-day countries (i.e. Yugoslavia for Croatia, Slovenia et al.; YU/Serbia and Montenegro for Serbia, Montenegro; USSR for Russia); or we remove any broadcasts which were not made by the present-day country entirely from those articles (so removing any Czechoslovak broadcast from Czechia, Slovakia; Soviet broadcasts from Russia). If we go with the former, that however raises the question about what to do with the table at Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons, whether broadcast information is retained at the Yugoslavia article as a duplicate or we just provide links to the tables at the respective successor states. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I think that the best approach is to be historically accurate. I mean, everything about Yugoslavia between 1961 and 1992 should be only in the Yugoslavian article, and in the current countries articles there should be a link like "for information prior to year XXX, see the Yugoslavian article".
The same for Czechoslovakia. I think in this case there should be created the corresponding article for Czechoslovakia, taking in consideration that at some point Czechoslovak Television (ČST) was eligible to participate and it has a broadcast history of the contest. (Lebanon has its own article). And I think that the article for ČST should also be recovered (now it redirects to ČT, and I think that is wrong as they are legally distinct and it overshadows STV's history).
Regarding USSR, as it never had a broadcaster eligible to participate, its broadcasting history should be keep only in the corresponding contest article. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe creating an article for Czechoslovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest (currently a redirect to List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest) would be useful, as they never entered or had intention to enter before their dissolution. This is different to Lebanon as they actually intended to participate in 2005 and had selected an entry before withdrawing. Potentially we could create a section for Czechoslovakia at List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest#Other countries and territories and add a table there for broadcasts in that country before 1993, and similarly create a table at List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest#Soviet Union for those broadcasts before its collapse in 1991. I still have questions about the Estonian broadcasts, since ETV had been a distinct organisation from the central Soviet TV, and it doesn't seem right to me to lump the two together. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I was also thinking about Estonia since I send my answer, I think that in this case, as it is the same broadcaster that first broadcast it and then participated (ETV), is ok to have its information in the Estonian article. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
In any other case (USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia), the broadcaster was not the same, it was a successor of it. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I think in the case of Yugoslavia the individual broadcasters from each country which were part of JRT essentially are the same as the broadcasters now. They just changed names and broke the link with JRT. This differs from Czechoslovakia to Czechia and Slovakia, and the Soviet Union to Russia, as these were new organisations founded in the 1990s, mainly using the structures and people from the former orgs. I think it would be disingenuous to treat Estonia one way and the former Yugoslav states another way. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I didn't explain myself well. When I said that the broadcaster was a successor I meant that in Yugoslavia the participant broadcaster was JRT, which was the EBU member, and which participation counts, and in the current countries it was succeeded by the current EBU members in each country. Yes, the broadcasters can be the same now than back then with different name, but their situation is not the same, as they are now full EBU members and participate on their own representing the current country, and back then they were mere affiliates of JRT, that was the participant representing Yugoslavia as a whole.
The case of Estonia is different, and more like Australia, we have a broadcaster that was broadcasting the contest before it could take part on its own, in a country that had never participated, nor had a EBU member broadcaster back then, so I see its situation different that the Yugaslav one. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have done more research on this topic and am reconsidering the Estonian issue. I asked myself: How did ETV obtain the rights to broadcast the contest?. If it was not a EBU member until 1993, and it was an OIRT member only in 1992, how did it get the rights before, if the OIRT member in USSR was CT USSR?.
The wikipedia article for CT USSR says:
"Baltic Programme was created in 1954 in Riga as the television bureau of CT USSR for viewers in the Baltic, with additional stations later created in Tallinn (1955) and Vilnius (1957). In 1957 the channel was split into three stations: Riga Television, Vilnius Television, and Tallinn Television for viewers in each of the three republics. Tallinn Television had already adopted the Eesti Televisioon brand in 1965."
According to this, ETV was an affiliate of the Soviet Central Television during the USSR, information that is omitted in the ETV article. So we have the same case than in Yugoslavia. CT USSR was the exclusive broadcasting right-holder in the country (as JRT was in Yugoslavia), and ETV was one of its affiliates simulcasting the event (similar to what happens now in Switzerland). So, I change my answer about Estonia during USSR to "the information in that period has to go only in the section about the Soviet Union". :) Ferclopedio (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The quote from CT USSR that you've added here is completely unsourced. Either way, the Baltic programming was only available in those countries/republics, so I think it's still reasonable to consider adding these broadcasts to the relevant articles on the present-day country. The difference between CT USSR and Channel One Russia in my mind is that CT was a Soviet-wide broadcaster, and that while C1R ended up using the facilities for CT's Programme One after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's a different situation because at that point C1R was focussed only on the Russian market and not the other 14 post-Soviet countries. This is the same I believe for Czechoslovak television, as the new broadcasters which were created during/after the Velvet Divorce are distinct from the company which existed in Czechoslovakia which broadcast to the entire country. There is however no discernable difference between ETV during the Soviet occupation of Estonia and ETV after it regained its independence, and personally after considering the information that this conversation has brought up I think the post-Yugoslav broadcasters should be treated similarly, that is to say that any known broadcasts by the future Slovene, Croatian, Serbian etc. public broadcasters during the era of Yugoslavia should be considered to be added to the individual articles for those countries. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
We agree on the facts, but with the information we have, I have come to the opposite conclusion than yours. Let me explain my point of view: you are focusing the issue on whether or not broadcasters are the same then and now, and I believe that to make the history of broadcasts, we have to focus on who was the owner of the broadcast rights. A broadcaster obtains broadcasting rights in its territory because, either it is an active member of the EBU, or it was an active member of the OIRT (which had an agreement with the EBU for its members), or acquires the rights directly from the EBU (whether it is an associate member or not).
The case of Czechoslovakia is easy, as ČST was an OIRT member first and a EBU member later, it had the broadcasting rights in all Czechoslovakia, and ČT and STV are different companies. So the information for Czechoslovakia has the right to have its own place. And I still believe that, to be completely correct, the article for Czechoslovak Television should be recovered.
The case of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union are similar. JRT was the EBU member and had the broadcasting rights in all Yugoslavia, and CT USSR was the OIRT member and had the broadcasting rights in all the USSR. Both of them had regional affiliates (CT USSR had also national), that broadcast the event just because they were part of the parent organization. This is similar to what happens in Switzerland. Whether or not those regional broadcasters evolved in independent companies that became EBU members later, does not interfere in the fact that the broadcasting rights-holder was the parent company in all its territory as the EBU/OIRT member. So, the information about the broadcasts within Yugoslavia has to be in the Yugoslavian article, and the information for the broadcasts within USSR has the right to have its own place. And the same for "Serbia and Montenegro".
With this approach, in addition to being historically accurate, we can be consistent in all articles and situations. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok I understand your reasoning on this a lot better now, thank you for the explanation! I do agree that a consistent approach is the best option here, so I'm happy to concede that keeping all broadcasts for the former countries separate from the current countries and their respective articles is definitely the better approach on that front. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Totally agree! I'm glad my explanation was helpful.
Now the question is, where is it better to put the information about the USSR and Czechoslovakia. It's fine for me to put it in a section in List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. But its "Other countries and territories" section is a mishmash. Countries whose broadcaster is a full member of the EBU, and therefore eligible to participate but for some reason or another have not done so, are mixed with countries whose broadcaster has tried to join the EBU but has not yet been able to -or simply does not have a broadcaster-, with countries with governments that have simply expressed a desire to participate, with countries in which the ESC has simply been broadcast, and with countries with broadcasters that have participated in other Eurovision events. And to this mess, the "Broadcasting" table is added below. From my point of view, this list of countries has two completely defined groups that should be totally separated: those with a full EBU member, and all the others.
The Soviet Union section is something like political fiction. It tells you about a desire that politicians had to participate, ignoring the main fact, that to participate the CT USSR had to be an active member of the EBU, something totally improbable in the middle of the Cold War. So the phrase "but it made several attempts in the late 1980s." is quite implausible.
And I see statements like "Kazakhstan is negotiating to join the European Broadcasting Union" as if a country could join the EBU. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I've now completely rewritten List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest#Soviet Union to remove the 1987 material and to add in known broadcasts within the Soviet Union, which only covers from 1986 onwards, and broadcasts prior to 1992 have been removed from Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons, with a new hatnote to link to the new table on Soviet broadcasts.
I keep coming back round to how to best approach broadcasts in the likes of Estonia or the former Yugoslav countries however; I think about the broadcast information we already know in the likes of Poland and Hungary, which is obviously non-contentious about where to place this, but these countries were not members of the EBU until the 1990s either. This kinda raises a bit of a question within me about why we are not then treating in the same way other countries, either newly formed or reestablished after the collapse of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, that had their own independent broadcasters within specific regions from the 1950s to early 1990s that now correspond exactly to present-day countries. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
We are treating them the same way. Let me apply my reasoning to Poland for example. We have TVP that, as an OIRT member first and a EBU member later, has had the broadcasting rights in all Poland then and now. So, its broadcasting history has to be in the Polish article. The same for Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.
Croatia, for example, has an EBU member now, but back then it had neither its own member of the EBU nor of OIRT. The ESC was broadcast in its territory by an affiliate of JRT, who was the rights-holder as the EBU member in all Yugoslavia. That is why the information about the broadcasts there back then is in the Yugoslav article.
And that is why the information of the broadcast in Estonia in 1992 is in the Estonian article, as ETV was an OIRT member in 1992. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
OK I can see your point there as well, thanks for clarifying! On a related note, I have spent some time to completely overhaul the broadcasts table at Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Commentators and spokespersons, expanding to cover all nine known Yugoslav broadcasters which showed the event between 1961 and 2002, and removing all manner of completely unverifiable material. It is a very bulky table now, given there are columns now for nine channels and nine potential commentators, so if anyone has any ideas on how to format this table in a better way then please do contribute here! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
WOW. That table is awesome and the archaeological work you have done is amazing. Good job. The table only needs its own horizontal scroll so that it does not overflow the Wikipedia layout.
Looking at the table, now I have doubts about the period 1993-2002 in the FRY, whether that information should be in the Serbia and Montenegro article instead. I have no doubts about 1992, as its participation was still under JRT and it's in the right place. After that contest, JRT was disbanded, the FRY was sanctioned by the UN, and its broadcaster UJRT didn't join the EBU until 2001. I don't know when UJRT was created, because the article doesn't say it clearly. And I assume that if they were able to broadcast the contest in FRY it was because they had a direct agreement with the EBU (something I see a little strange if they were under UN sanctions), or because they simply hacked the signal -jointly under UJRT or separately-. According to its article, FRY is Serbia and Montenegro, only the name changes. So, with the little I know about the history of television broadcasting in Serbia and Montenegro during the Balkan war, and applying my reasoning, I think that the information about that period should be in the "Serbia and Montenegro" article. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. It was really a joint effort with other users over the past couple of years, I just compiled all the various verifiable information that exists in the yearly articles and placed them within the one table.
The "FR Yugoslavia = Serbia and Montenegro" argument with relation to Eurovision on Wikipedia has a looooong history. I'll refer you to Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Granted this case was close to 16(!) years ago now, however I still think the simplest way to approach this, which was what was agreed upon within mediation, is to keep everything related to Yugoslavia at Eurovision, whether that was SFR Yugoslavia before 1992 or FR Yugoslavia up until the name change in 2003, within the same article, i.e. the Yugoslavia in ESC article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
OK! If it was already discussed, I have nothing to say. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Usage of images

Hi everyone.

I don't know if it has already been raised, but I want to reconsider the use of images not related to the event to which an article refers (ESC, national final, etc.) in this project. I am referring to the use of images of people, or buildings, not taken at the event to which the article refers. I don't know what value the photo of the façade of the venue adds to the article if it's not dressed up for that specific event, or the photo of a singer or presenter if it is not from its participation in the event. I know that it is fancy to have images in the articles, and that for old events is difficult to find photos of them, but instead of adding photos from another time, I think it is better not to have them, even more so if they are interfering with the tables and the infobox and breaking the format of the article in some cases. What do you think? Ferclopedio (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It's always better to have pictures from that specific time, but if none are available, then another picture should be used — IмSтevan talk 12:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. While it's ideal to have pictures from the specific event, using related images when none are available can still add value to the article. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I concur with ImStevan and Ktkvtsh on this. I believe that as a project we are very cognisant of what images are included on the articles, at least I know I am. Are there any examples where you believe the addition of images detracts from the article that you would like to share? If there's something that you think is in contravention of MOS:IMAGES then I think that is worthy of discussion, but I definitely do not support a blanket ban on the use of images of people, or buildings, not taken at the event to which the article refers. If we were to take your suggestion and apply it as a rule consistently then there would be a lot of articles which we would never be able to add images for because of copyright law, and the lack of suitable free imagery which has been made available on Commons. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There are already many contest articles that do not have any image. And also many who have photos of their own edition. The use of photos out of time is not everywhere, but there are some contests that have them. There are cases that those images have a good size for the place where they are located, don't interfere with any table, and have sense to be there, like 2006, I'm fine with that. But there are cases like 1974, 1975, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1997 that have vertical photos of a big size, not from that edition, that interfere with a table (or making it narrower -what expand it vertically- or leaving a big white space before the table in some screen sizes), and that makes me wonder why that exact photo is there. Also 1980 with photos of good size and of the event that interfere with the table and 1998 with a vertical photo of other event too big for the section. Cases like those are the ones that raised that question in me and that's why I asked here about that. Ferclopedio (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes of course not every article requires an image, but I think for Eurovision, where there are a lot of people involved, images are a very useful tool that adds value to these articles, and I believe that for the vast majority of our articles MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is being maintained. Being illustrated by relevant media where possible is also one of the Good article criteria. For the vast majority of instances which you listed, and granted a lot of them are articles which I improved to GA status, what images have been placed where has been given some thought, e.g. a notable past participant, a former winner returning etc. It's not just random images being added to articles because we can, there is thought being put behind it. Additionally, as you can see at WP:WHITE, sometimes white space is unavoidable anyway, depending on your browser, font size, screen size etc. We have a lot of tables within these articles, and particularly the Participants table is near the top of each article, so even the placement of tables in relation to the infobox is going to create white space. Sure sizing of the images could potentially be looked at again, but I think for the majority of cases the sizing of each image is also generally ok. It's not been something that's come up in my past GA review for example. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ESC Director

If "the ESC Director will oversee the work of the existing Executive Supervisor and a new role entitled Head of ESC Brand and Commercial",[1] then surely the infobox should from 2025 onwards display the director, as that role seems to now trump the supervisor, right? — IмSтevan talk 08:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we could possibly do that, however given the roles are still being developed and there is a lot unknown at this stage about how the team will look (and since we don't even have confirmed names for any of the named roles directly involved in ESC production in 2025 bar the SRG SSR exec producers) I'd say we can hold off for now until we get more clarity about what the roles are and how they intersect with the contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources: eurovisionartists.nl / natfinals.50webs.com

Just to alert you that a discussion on these two websites is going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Sources. There is no consensus so far, you are welcome to have your say! EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Issue with logo image

File:Eurovision Young Musicians 2024 logo.png Hey all, does anybody know how to fix this or could find a better alternative? Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Fort esc, I have just updated it to a black version, thanks for bringing this up! Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 03:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Venue Coordinates

I am wondering if everyone would be okay with me adding coordinates of host venues to Eurovision articles. All it would do is feature the venue coordinates in the title of the page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer it as a part of the infobox, as a part of the venue value — IмSтevan talk 20:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if it's really necessary to add that. The articles are about events, not venues, and the coordinates are in the corresponding venue article after all. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is making it about the venue, I think it is more about where the event was located in general. Isn't that what the (add coordinates) space is for? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. I won't proceed with it. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Flags or hearts

Why are we utilizing default flags in tables and infoboxes when heart-flags of Eurovision are available to us? Much like Olympic pictograms on its pages, surely we could utilize a part of Eurovision's branding and recognizability on its pages, as such:

First semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024
R/O Country Artist Song Points Place
1 Moldova Natalia Barbu "In the Middle" 20 4
2 Cyprus Silia Kapsis "Liar" 67 2
3 Serbia Teya Dora "Ramonda" 47 3
4 Lithuania Silvester Belt "Luktelk" 119 1
5 Iceland Hera Björk "Scared of Heights" 3 5

— IмSтevan talk 15:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit: These flags are also all in the same dimensions, which would create consistency — IмSтevan talk 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. I support the use of these instead of the rectangle flags for Eurovision related tables such as the example above. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I think such a change is absolutely pointless. It may be branding but we're not here for branding, are we? And also I personally don't like it esthetically... Yoyo360 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Yoyo360, I don't think these look good at all, and the Wikipedia article that you linked literally has flags in their respective rectangular shapes on it Spleennn (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I was talking about sports pictograms — IмSтevan talk 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and I was talking about flags. I don't understand the logic in changing how the flags on one Wikipedia page look according to the way that sport pictograms look on a different page, when the same page has flags that look exactly how the current flags on Eurovision Wikipedia look. Spleennn (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The point was that it's not unprecedented to use icons in tables like that. I suggested it because these hearts are tied to these countries' presence at the contest, but perhaps it makes sense not to use them as they didn't even exist until 2004 — IмSтevan talk 20:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure that the use of the heart-flags can be applied in a general way, for several reasons.
- First, as it is noted on the page where it lists them: "heart-flags are not adopted until Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) 2004, Junior Eurovision Song Contest (JESC) 2008, and never exist in Eurovision Young Dancers (EYD), Eurovision Young Musicians (EYM) and Eurovision Magic Circus Show (EMCS)", so the use of heart-flags in a general way, besides being weird, is not historically accurate. In addition, we have two versions of the heart-flags, the one 2004-14 and the 2015-present, and the one corresponding to the year in question should be used. This would lead us to the flags being displayed differently depending on the year.
- Second, that the use of the heart-flags means to modify the Country in the Eurovision Song Contest template according to everything said above. An additional year (or flag shape version) parameter will have to be added to the template so that it can display the correct flag, which means that it would have to be edited every time that the template is used to set the corresponding year (flag shape version).
- Third, the fact that rectangular flags were used some years and heart-shaped flags other years leads to the question of what to do with the most relevant flag, the large flag in the Infobox song contest country. Should it be rectangular or heart-shaped?. If it is heart-shaped, you have to make sure it is displayed correctly in the infobox, in the Wikipedia search box, and in the pop-ups when hovering over links. Either way it would not be coherent in either case, since there would be three different shaped flags all over the years. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@ImStevan, I just read your last reply just after finishing writing my long paragraph. Let it be noted that I don't dislike the idea, but I'm not sure its application is possible when taking into account all the cases. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose any changes from the standard official flags to the heart ones, this is a general encyclopedia and not one just for Eurovision fans. -- AxG / ✉  21:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This is starting to creep towards a MOS:FLAG violation. The flags as they are used now are to aid in identification of the countries. Using heart variants makes it instead a type of decoration. Grk1011 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: While the hearts are nice, the existing flags need to be retained to assist users with identifying countries. Perhaps the hearts could be featured somewhere in the country in the contest articles, but the proper flags should by no means be replaced. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
That was my second thought. The infoboxes for country articles don't have photos right now, why not include it? — IмSтevan talk 17:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_33&oldid=1250611448"