Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Eurovision)
Home
Talk
Article
Alerts
Assessment
Quality
Articles
Popular
Pages
Formatting
& Guidance
News DeskArchiveMembers
WikiProject iconEurovision Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Shortcuts

Tables for semis[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seconding these replies. Doesn’t add anything but rather confuses. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree with this point. Toffeenix (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Simple fix, just have the title say "First semi-final of" — IмSтevan talk 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maps (again)[edit]

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

Junior Eurovision Song Contest-specific maps

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

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

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

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

Relegated countries on maps[edit]

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)[reply]

It makes perfect sense! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have similar feelings. Both look fine but I also prefer the blue shade. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I added an additional source for Macedonia and gave it a special mention — IмSтevan talk 15:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Qualification tables during relegation era[edit]

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

Table key

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

Table key

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

R[edit]

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

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

Withdrawn countries[edit]

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 1999 rules was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Argo discussion[edit]

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

Adding an explanation of what the abbreviation R/O means[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I definitely like it better, Sims. Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on periphery articles[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

ESC Reporter[edit]

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)[reply]

ESC 2025 Map[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done — IмSтevan talk 03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision&oldid=1221693051"