Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Songwriters for Eblansh band

With the knowledge that "O, Moldova mea dragă!" is an AI generated song, and Eblansh band is not real, is there grounds to remove the list of songwriters for the song here, or at least note that the list is perhaps not accurate? It is what the broadcaster listed, (I can't find the source?) but it's now disputed information — IмSтevan talk 23:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d say add a note that it was created using AI and include a source backing that up. Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Or vice versa? "AI generated song" with a note on the stated songwriters? — IмSтevan talk 07:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
That could work. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Winners in yellow on maps

Hi guys. I'd like to ask if there has been a talk and/or decision to show the winning country with yellow on the maps? This seems to have been done unilaterally by @TheThomanski but I just want to be sure. Adding this to the map seems superfluous to me as the information is already visible and the summary, in the box and in the main body of the article. I would also like to remind TheThomanski that these maps are cross wiki and this kind of decision does not impact wiki:en only. For instance, if this new colour is maintained, that means edits of legend in every box on wiki:fr, where I mainly contribute. Yoyo360message me 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There has been no discussion regarding this — IмSтevan talk 09:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Well then, I'll just start reverting. Yoyo360message me 09:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
All  Done Yoyo360message me 10:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
And I would like to remind @Yoyo360 that there is something called WP:BOLD, this Wikiproject needs to stop with all this bureaucratic bullshit for every minor change.
According to your logic everything in the map is superfluous because it is all in the main body of the text anyway, might as well remove the entire map and infobox. The map is supposed to be a visual summary of the contest and I would imagine that the winner is a big part of the contest — TheThomanski | t | c | 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You were bold, it didn't work. Yet. Call that as you want but I wouldn't qualify that as minor. You changed around 90 maps that are used cross wiki... Yoyo360message me 16:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheThomanski: I don't see this WikiProject being too bureaucratic; it's a venue for collaboration and coordination. You made a change that it appears many folks don't agree with, and not only that, but it impacted Wikipedias in other languages too and hundreds of articles. Yoyo360 isn't even a member of this WikiProject, but they came here looking for help after your unilateral decision. You cite WP:BOLD as support for your actions, but here's what it says about template changes: One must be especially careful when being bold with templates: updating them can have far-reaching consequences because one change can affect lots of pages at once. Moreover, some templates are part of a wide-ranging, uniform system of templates across Wikipedia, e.g. infoboxes and stubs. Remember, all source code is easily broken by untested changes (but always quite fixable). Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Templates often have associated sandbox and testcases pages; respectively these are a place for the proposed modified template, and a place where the proposal may be trialed in comparison with the existing version. It also says to not take offense when you're reverted for being bold and it's very clear that others not liking your change has upset you. Regardless of the existence of a WikiProject for a subject, changes are always subject to discussion. Grk1011 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting idea. Could you share an example of it here? Even if not implemented (or implemented) I'd love to see what it looked like. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Editing template

Thoughts on my edit suggestion? — IмSтevan talk 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@ImStevan: It's not just Eurovision articles that use this template though. The text within the template needs to be neutral to be useful for all song contests, past, present and future. The name of the contest is in the main header anyway, but I concur that the current wording of this sub-header is a bit awkward. I don't support your current suggested change, but if you want to suggest some other wording that is less specific to one event then I'm happy to work with you to change this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I immediately got a better idea — IмSтevan talk 10:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Disqualified colour

Using Pesma za Evroviziju '25 as an example, isn't a bit hard to read blue and especially red links on the dark red colour for disqualified entries? It also draws too much attention to the withdrawn entries, even tho they should be the least relevant on the list. Perhaps utilising pink would be smarter, like here? — IмSтevan talk 21:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree. Pink is a better choice. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this is a sensible change. We just need to be mindful of any accessibility issues the colour change may present, per MOS:COLOR. It does appear that the pink and green contrast is suitable for most types of colour blindness, so I am happy to support this change. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Laura Thorn

Looks like a new editor hastily made the Laura Thorn page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I've redirected it. At some point she will meet the inclusion criteria for a separate article, but as of now, she appears to be only notable for being the entrant. Any article is therefore just scattered/duplicative info about being the entrant and nothing else. Grk1011 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential deletion of categories

While I was helping add categories to Shkodra Elektronike, I noticed that all of the categories by country and by year for every Eurovision entry have been nominated for deletion.

Now, while I'm a Eurovision fan and not an official member of WikiProject Eurovision, I found this idea to be concerning - helping categorize each entry by year and by country, I believe, helps with avoiding clutter and keeps things neat and organized.

Apologies for any potential "unprofessional" phrasing here, I just wanted to bring this issue to the WikiProject's attention. ButI'llBeThereNextTime (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@ButI'llBeThereNextTime: As the nominator of these categories for discussion, I would just reiterate that Wikipedia has guidelines around overcategorisation. There are many cases where categorisation is not necessary, and in this case I believe that these categories fall down specifically on the "performers by performance" grouping. If you disagree, I suggest you contribute to the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Song contest performer categories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 21#ESC/JESC entrant categories.
For any WikiProject members that were not aware of this, I would strongly suggest that you follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Article alerts, as this will keep you abreast of all developments related to WikiProject pages. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Links
I came here to post a notice about the same thing.
Please visit these pages

and read the discussion. (It there is any. Cause people are just blindly voting "delete by nom", "delete by nom", seemingly without even thinking.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Three people who didn’t even elaborate as to their reasoning shouldn’t get to delete all these categories. I can’t possibly see any positive consequence of doing that.
If I knew this was up for discussion, I would have voted against it.
Is there anything that can be done to reinstate them, if consensus is as such? LivLovisa (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
"Delete per nom" is the reasoning. It means that the nomination is policy-based and the editor agrees with the interpretation. If the categories were recreated, it would have to be paired with a change in Wikipedia's overall categorization guidelines, not just a local discussion for Eurovision categories. Grk1011 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
That's the whole point of the CfD process, to gain consensus on whether categories which exist should be deleted. There was consensus that the sub-categories should be deleted, however consensus was not reached on deleting Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants and Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants, and thus they remain. There would need to be a compelling reason, based on Wikipedia policy, for the sub-categories to be recreated. Additionally, any suggested changes to WikiProject Eurovision-related articles, lists, categories, templates etc. are always populated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Article alerts; it would be wise to follow this page, so in future you can contribute to these discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC on rescoping WikiProject Eurovision

PASSED
Broad consensus has been reached, with 80% of WikiProject Eurovision members polled supporting the change to "WikiProject Song Contests".

As discussed below, the process will now begin to rename the Project and all related pages and templates to become "WikiProject Song Contests", and a separate discussion will be opened to discuss what articles should remain in scope and importance ratings for the new Project. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Should WikiProject Eurovision be rescoped to become a task force for a new WikiProject Song Contests? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Longer brief: I have been thinking for quite a while now about this WikiProject, and what I believe to be considerable scope creep over the past decade or so. What started as a project devoted mainly to the Eurovision Song Contest, and by extension other EBU contests, has since exploded not just EBU events, but also a large number of other events, and by extension many articles that are very much only tangentially related to any of these articles. We now have almost 9,000 articles under the remit of the WikiProject, many of which I think are of no interest to the majority of editors within this project, and our popular pages list each month is almost invariably filled by various broadcasters, a group of articles which also have only a tangential relationship to the majority of articles which are of actual interest to the editors of this project.

With this in mind, and considering that I believe WikiProjects work best when they focus on the articles that people are actually interested in improving, I'm proposing that the WikiProject be rescoped to become WikiProject Song Contests. Given that there are several contests out there where we are actively contributing, and not all of which are led by the EBU, or are even entitled "Eurovision" or related to ESC, I believe that this rebranding makes better sense going forwards. As part of this rebrand, I envisage that we will create several task forces, focussed specifically on high-profile contests. Right now I see one or two task forces in particular being created, specifically focussing on the Eurovision Song Contest and, depending on interest, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest.

I do not believe that the current sub-categorisation of high-profile contests which serve as national selections for ESC should be maintained, and these should therefore be categorised in the same way as the "main" contests. Depending on editor interest, new task forces could potentially also be created focussing on some of these, e.g. Melodifestivalen, Benidorm Fest, Festivali i Këngës, Sanremo, etc.

Should agreement be reached following this discussion, I believe that Stage 1 of implementing the new WikiProject structure would be to create a new page and related sub-pages for WikiProject Song Contests and to move the current WikiProject Eurovision pages to become sub-pages within the new WikiProject structure (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision would become Wikipedia:WikiProject Song Contest/Eurovision task force). Further stages would then be to consider which articles we should include within the scope of our new project and reassessing importance.

Eager to hear thoughts, opinions, suggestions, concerns, musings, etc. on the above! I'm proposing that this discussion continue until 31 January 2025 to try and get the widest input possible from all editors concerned as we move into the 2025 national selection season. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Polling (RfC on rescoping WikiProject Eurovision)

Discussion (RfC on rescoping WikiProject Eurovision)

 Comment: Just a thought/suggestion: Perhaps national selections should be taken out of the Eurovision task force and made into a separate one (Wikipedia:WikiProject Song Contests/National contests) alongside other song contests limited to a single country, such as Bundesvision and the American Song Contest, and let the Eurovision task force deal with Eurovision articles exclusively — IмSтevan talk 13:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

But would it not be (mostly if not entirely) the same editors doing essentially the same sort of work for all of those projects? Seems like an arbitrary division that could serve to make editing harder by separating efforts and discussions which apply to all relevant articles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: While I agree that the project currently has scope creep, your brief raises many questions for me.

First, I don't understand why the WikiProject Eurovision has no relation to WikiProject Television and it has with WikiProject Music. The current description of the project is "improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Eurovision Network, and other topics similar to but not necessarily identical to the Eurovision event concept". The Eurovision network is a television communications network, and every Eurovision event is essentially a television show (and not all of them are related to music). So, according to the current definition of the project, I understand that it is closer to television than to music.

If I understand correctly, what you are asking for is a rescope of the project to make it WikiProject Song Contests, so that it falls completely within WikiProject Music, which would mean that any event that is not a Song Contest would be excluded from the project, even any other Eurovision event apart from ESC and JESC. Is everyone who agrees aware of this?

Even with this rescope, neither the ESC nor the JESC nor any of their national finals nor any song contests similar to them (which will make up the vast majority of the events covered by the new project) will cease to be essentially television shows, meaning that they were intentionally created as television shows by television broadcasters. All these song contests together form a subgenre of television shows, rather than independent events in their own right. Of course there are song contests of the latter, but I think they will be a small minority in the new project.

I do not agree with the phrase "high-profile contests which serve as national selections for ESC". With the exception of Sanremo, which is the only "high-profile contests which serve as national selections for ESC", all other contest that are ESC and JESC national finals were specifically created by the respective broadcaster as a television show to select their entry to the contest, and are simply that (however popular they became), so their subordination to the main event is obvious, even though there have been years in which a broadcaster has not competed in the main and has staged the local contest.

I do agree with QuietHere. I don't think that splitting the project into subprojects or taskforces will help with the problem, when we are the same editors doing essentially the same sort of work on similar articles. And if the intention of the change is to attract new editors, I'm not sure that changing the well-known name Eurovision to a more generic one will help. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first point: I believe that the vast majority of editors which are attached to WikiProject Eurovision as it currently stands are mainly interested in editing articles related to the song contests only. Potentially I'm wrong here, but that's my understanding, and it's certainly what motivates me to be a part of this project. I have very limited interest in editing articles on the network, or indeed the member broadcasters, or any other EBU-related articles. I understand that everyone has different interests, so if there are any members that are interested in these articles, then please do add to this discussion! However if it's true as I believe that most editors attached to this project are only interested in the song contest element of Eurovision, then why are these other articles "attached" to our project if we have no intention of improving them?
I understand your point around how this project interacts with WikiProject Television. Certainly I believe that any rescoping should include more of a branching out into that project. Eurovision, Junior Eurovision, etc. are more than just television shows though, and the musical element is just as important. So I disagree with your point that they will "cease to be essentially television shows", because I think they have evolved into much more than just a TV show. Yes broadcasters are involved, and without the EBU there would be no ESC, but you just have to look at music charts around the world to see the impact of these contests beyond just television.
Regarding your disagreement with the "promotion" of other contests related to ESC to the same level as ESC or JESC, there are definitely more cases than just Sanremo; Festivali i Këngës existed long before Albania joined ESC. Culturally as well a lot of events match, or even surpass, ESC, even if they were founded when a country joined ESC. I find it hard to believe that Melodifestivalen, the biggest event in Sweden every year, should be "relegated" just because the winner goes to Eurovision. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, everyone has different interests and motivations. I see (and understand by the description) the current project as an "Eurovision events" project, with not only the ESC and JESC and its national finals, also with EYM, EYD... and even JSF (which I don't know why it hasn't been included yet). I myself am interested in its television, competitive, and international co-production aspects. And I see that a vast majority of the article edits focus on the organization of those events, the competition itself (point tables) and its broadcasting (commentators, stations that broadcast it, spokespersons, etc.) rather than on the music, so I must not be the only one. I do not underestimate the musical value of ESC and JESC and so, and I understand that in that sense the project is related to the WikiProject Music. But even with this great musical value, ESC and JESC are still television shows so they are more related to the WikiProject Television. And we have other Eurovision events that are not song contest and the question is whether we should get rid of them or not, when they share similarities with the others. In my opinion any other EBU-related article not related with the events, including the broadcasters, are covered in the WikiProject Television and WikiProject Media and can fall out this project.
Yes, maybe FiK is like Sanremo, but Melodifestivalen, even though it is the biggest event in Sweden each year, is still a television show created and staged by SVT specifically to choose its entry for Eurovision. My point is that is not a high-profile contests "which serve" as national selections, it is a national selection that had became huge. And maybe locally in some cases, but internationally none of the national events come even remotely close to the cultural impact of the ESC. Ferclopedio (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The television show part of this discussion is rather pedantic. We can be a song contest Wikiproject and still write/include articles that are shown on tv, as long as they are song contests. The difference here that you seem to be trying to pry apart is whether it is a television show or a contest and what's more important, and let's be clear here, it's a televised song contest (both). I noted above in my !vote that I support Sims' proposal (disclaimer: I helped him craft it), but I do want to suggest that we hold off on any task forces until we identify a clear need and have the resources/time to administer them. Grk1011 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
On reflection I do think that Grk1011 is probably right that task forces may be a little overkill at this stage. I suppose I was maybe getting ahead of myself here, but it's certainly something we can look into again in future as and when a clear need is identified. We don't have to get bogged down in the details about "importance" rankings just yet, but I still do believe however that just because a contest serves as a national selection for ESC, that doesn't mean it is anyway "lesser" than ESC. If it has a standalone article, then it is clearly notable enough to stand apart from ESC even if there is a linkage. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8, normally, we don't use an RFC for a question like this. That's because a Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of people, and in practice, you can't get a "consensus" that other WP:VOLUNTEERS will do what we tell them to do.
If you want to rename a group, then the usual process is outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Renaming a WikiProject. If you want to merge two or more groups, then the usual process is (mostly) outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects. The key point is that the decisions need to be made by the people who participate in the groups (or else they'll quit participating, and then you won't actually have a WikiProject). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, @ImStevan, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, @IvanScrooge98, @Ktkvtsh, @Grk1011, in your votes above, it may be helpful to indicate whether you are/intend to be a participant in the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, I'm not in the slightest interested in editing articles about music. I only participated in the RFC because I was summoned by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Technically I already am part of this Wikiproject. For a number of reasons, I’ve only edited marginally on Eurovision itself in the past few months, but I’m still working on the Sanremo articles. Which would fit with the repurposed Wikiproject, wouldn’t it? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m not particularly interested; this had been a bot summons. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we send talk page messages to all project participants about this RfC, given that this is a rather fundamental change? I was on a break from Wikipedia so I did not notice this discussion, but I would have noticed the notification if I had received one. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You may do that if you want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I had been thinking about this recently too. I don't exactly know the best way to send mass-messages to all Project members. @Ktkvtsh: is this something you might be able to help with? Happy to draft some wording for you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
If you can get a list of participants, then you can ask for help with delivery at Wikipedia:Mass message senders (or any admin can do it). If the list is sufficiently short, it's probably faster to just deliver it manually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, i'd be more than happy to help. If you'll draft something up, I'll get it sent out. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As for my opinion: I fail to see the problem that this would solve. There is no requirement for WikiProject Eurovision members to work on every article within the project's scope, so it's fine if the scope is large. The main purpose of a WikiProject is coordination, including applying a consistent style to these articles – and the style that is used for articles about ESC can also be applied to e.g. articles about EYM (which is not a song contest).

Plus, a big part about a WikiProject to consider is branding. And let's be honest, pretty much all of us are here because of the Eurovision Song Contest specifically, not per se because we like song contests in general. The name WikiProject Eurovision seems much more likely to me to attract interested people. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

One option is to keep the name and expand the scope.
It is important to remember that WikiProjects are groups of people (not "subject areas"), and that the group gets to decide which articles it wants to work on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason I brought the discussion in the first place was because I felt the scope was, not necessarily "too big" but incorrect if that makes sense? If you take a look at the project's popular pages or our importance scale, I believe there are many groups of articles in here where there is very limited scope within this Wikiproject, but because it's "Eurovision" (as in the network) it had previously been determined that these articles should be under our scope, e.g. articles on individual broadcasters, technical articles related to the EBU. This is why I brought the discussion on renaming the project so that we could refocus the project onto the song contest aspect, rather than any technical aspects related to the EBU or other broadcasting organisations. If we can achieve that without renaming the group if there is strong will to retain the name "Eurovision" in the group then that's ok by me, but I still prefer a rename just to make it clear that articles which have a very indirect relationship with the main song contest articles aren't really relevant to this group. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
In order to get rid of the EBU-related articles, it is not necessary to rename the project, it is enough to focus the project only on the "events" part of the description where it says "coverage of topics related to the Eurovision Network, and other topics similar to but not necessarily identical to the Eurovision event concept."
And honestly, I don't know if it's just me who doesn't see them, but you all talk about the project expanding much further... but I don't see anything more than a small bunch of song contests outside the Eurovision sphere with enough notability to have coverage or interest. We can continue covering them under the same umbrella without changing the name to a generic one. And it is not necessary to give a full coverage of every event, we just need to define the limits.
Keeping the name, we can maintain the brand and its appeal, the coverage on Eurovision events that are not song contests (EYM, EYD, JSF...), the coverage of all song contests on the Eurovision sphere (national and international), cover additionally any other song contest of interest out of the Eurovision sphere, and apply a consistent style to all of them. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The 'problem' is that if we remain WikiProject Eurovision, then continually expanding the scope makes the Eurovision part pretty irrelevant. The idea is to change the branding to something that matches editors' expectations and can help with recruitment and collaboration. In the discussion above, the idea is to understand who could potentially be 'left out' of a change in the WikiProject by removing certain articles from the scope. From the looks of it, pretty much no active WP:ESC users contribute to the articles proposed for removal in a significant way. And let's be honest, despite having over 100 members, there are only a handful of folks that edit daily/weekly and most of us have already weighed in above. Grk1011 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of people that want to work together. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, WikiProjects (=the group of people) define their scope. Groups of people are allowed to make odd choices about the articles they choose to work on, and they are not actually required to have a name that signals their scope. If the group wants to call themselves "WikiProject Squirrels" and instead work on social media influencers, that's okay. If this group wants to call themselves "WikiProject Eurovision" but expand their scope to include non-Eurovision articles, that's okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ratings/viewership

Why did we stop including the viewership by country? If it was removed, why was it not added to per country articles? — IмSтevan talk 18:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Large lists of viewership by country, without related context, is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. It is totally acceptable to add this information to the related "country by year" articles, where other information (e.g. peak viewership, comparing current year to previous years etc.) can also be presented. However compiling all viewership figures for every country runs the risk of showing a misleading picture, as TV viewership comparison between countries is not always relevant, e.g. the peak figure in Germany is almost always going to be invariably bigger than the peak figure in Ireland. Additionally, different countries will have different methodologies for calculating viewership, and will release different information publicly, which again makes a "like-for-like" comparison across countries a lot more difficult. Absolutely this information should be added to the "country by year" articles, but that requires willing editors to make those edits. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Supervisor in infobox

The executive supervisor and head of brand and commercial both report to the ESC director, right? So, why would the supervisor, other than legacy, stay in the infobox in 2025? Or alternatively, why would head of brand and commercial be excluded, since he is shoulder to shoulder rank-wise to the executive supervisor? — IмSтevan talk 23:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I had been thinking about what roles should be included in the infobox lately as well. My thoughts are that the exec supervisor role is a very public-facing role, particularly during the live broadcast, and this has been the case since the 60s, whereas other roles within the EBU team are not so publicly known. We don't know exactly how the ESC director role will feature in the live broadcast, if at all, but I don't believe any "brand/commercial" role should be featured, as this role has very little to do with the actual TV production of the contest itself. Potentially the ESC director role should also be removed from the infobox, given that their role appears to be a lot more "future-focussed" than related to any one contest in particular. The exec supervisor however is very much a core role that has existed for decades at this point (under different names), and is a key person for each individual contest, and therefore is I believe a relevant person to call out in the infobox. A discussion on which individuals to name in the infobox though is potentially warranted. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Participants in 1993 and 1996

Pinging @Sims2aholic8 who reverted my edits to the 1993 and 1996 pages. I had added a footnote to the number of participants (23) listed in the infoboxes of these pages, noting the qualifying rounds but that these are not given as official participations for the DNQs. Per WP:SYNTH, we consider these to be no different to semi finals on the "country in the contest" articles, so a note should be required on why these are different to 2004 onwards. I am disappointed these were reverted outright, they do not appear to break any MOS guideline. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted these edits because I do not believe this information needs to be called out in the infoboxes. The qualifying rounds in 1993 and 1996 are not the same thing as the semis from 2004 onwards, and the EBU does not count the entries which didn't progress as official entries for those countries, e.g. Romania's page at eurovision.tv. I don't really know where you're getting "we consider these to be no different to semi finals on the "country in the contest" articles" from tbh, apart from the fact that the results of those qualifying rounds are listed in the tables; personally I don't take that to mean that they are identical. Also can you please explain how you believe there to be a WP:SYNTH violation by not including a footnote in the infobox? I believe that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is an important MOS guideline to consider, specifically "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I prefer leaving the infobox as is, particularly given the EBU considers those contests to have 25 and 23 entries respectively, and since I believe that adding in a footnote to show "exceptions" would be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the topic, especially considering that delegations from 25 and 23 countries respectively actually went to the host city. This is a big difference compared to 2004 onwards when all delegations are present, and the whole contest is hosted in one week. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Obviously we're applying more a modern way of thinking to something that happened in the past and it's hard to know exactly how things were presented or perceived back then, even with the many sources out there. I think it's pretty clear that many countries wanted to part in those two contests, but the countries that did not make it through the qualifying rounds did not take part. Let's try to not retroactively apply the semi-final way of thinking to the past. As Sims noted, it's not that this information is missing from the article, it's just not something that must be included in the quick overview infobox. The total number of participants is the number that took part, no asterisk. Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think it could be fun to have a bunch of userboxes like the ones below to put somewhere on the wikiproject page. Let me know and I'll make some more. Btw, the ŠČ one has a few different forms, so go here to check it out.

This user broke the code
(woah oh oh)
ŠČ!Trajna-nina, armagedonona!

Brobbz (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I like this idea! I could make a few myself — IмSтevan talk 12:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Awesome! :) I set up a category so they can be easily indexed, and made these ones
€This user always stays cool,
like a swimming pool.
€This user needs a chance to refinance.
. Brobbz (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
This user wonders what the
secret to Meghan Markle's
healthy hair is
This user is grateful
for the existence of the
autonomic nervous system
This user takes walks
with their dog
This user counts their steps
This user is invisible
— IмSтevan talk 18:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Userboxes is a redirect for now, but perhaps it can be turned into a list of userboxes — IмSтevan talk 19:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I love it
𝄞This user serves kant!
𝄞This user has a secret you should know (do re mi fa sol)
Brobbz (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Eurovision entrants categories

I recently noticed that subcategories for Eurovision Song Contest entrants and Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants were deleted with many of the pages failing to be recategorized in the existing main category. Is there a way we can do this without manually going through every single article about a Eurovision participant? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure there is an easy way to achieve this using automation. Possibly in tandem with the changes to the importance ratings being discussed above we can ensure that any artists not included are suitably recategorised. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Standardize the English name of “Andra chansen”

The 5th episode of every edition of Melodifestivalen since 2002 has gone by different names, and this is made even more difficult to talk about in English, due to the lack of a standardized translation.

In Swedish, the official wiki of Melodifestivalen (run by SVT themselves) uses the word uppsamlingskval (Swedish for 'repechage') as a catch all term. They specifically draw the comparison to rowing and similar sports, where this vocabulary comes from.[1]

It’s not a big deal in articles that are only relevant to one edition of Melodifestivalen, but in articles describing artists, for instance; terms like “vinnarnas val”, “allmänhetens val”, “andra chansen”, “semifinalen”, and “finalkvalet” are confusing because they all refer to the same thing, and especially so when these get informally translated into English by different authors on Wikipedia, causing an even bigger mess.

I suggest that repechage be the English-language term used on Wikipedia for this heat, to match how it’s done in Swedish. LivLovisa (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting points; however, as a native English speaker, repechage is a term I have never heard of in my life. Perhaps just "second chance" would be more fitting? I'd be interested to see what English-language sources use. Grk1011 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Repechage is a term used in a lot of different sports, particularly those that have many competitors facing off in heats. Here are some examples of usage in the Olympics, for instance.[2][3] LivLovisa (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Also a native English speaker and I have heard 'repechage' before, but yes it's very much a sporting term so can understand how someone may not come across it before. I totally understand where you're coming from, it is a bit "mismatch"-y currently between all the different terms, and I would support standardising this NF concept to repechage. It would also be useful to have a consistent word we can use across all contests, e.g. Melodi Grand Prix has also had a siste sjansen round in past editions, as well as past editions of NFs in Denmark, Iceland and San Marino, to name a few. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Are there consistent examples of that word being used as the name for these rounds in English? This naming convention should be based on WP:COMMONNAME and while my search did find a couple examples of "repechage" for this use, most seemed to use "second chance", which is a much more widely-understood term. While you mention "uppsamlingskval (Swedish for 'repechage')", that isn't actually what the dictionary/translation services return; I got "catch-up qualifiers" and "collection qualification". Those translations aren't quite helpful to use instead, but translating Swedish to an obscure French word occasionally used in English for sporting events does not seem like a good option either. Grk1011 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
1. Please don’t trust machine translations, for a start.
2. I’m advocating for the common name in Swedish to be translated into English specifically because there isn’t a standard term in English. WP:COMMONNAME directly states:

When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

3. It’s not an obscure word, it's used all over in different competitions. LivLovisa (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
But you haven't provided evidence for your translation? Perhaps I misunderstood your proposal as I thought you were trying to rename everything as repechage. I suppose you could write something like "For 2014, a repechage round named Andra chansen (second chance) took place where...". I Just want to make sure we're reflecting actual sources, not summarily categorizing things. It sounds more like this is a description rather than a name, and that's overall fine to me, especially if wikilinked. Grk1011 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I’ve already linked the glossary used in SVT’s own styleguide. If you’re looking for sources for the translation specifically, look at Wiktionary, or the fact that I’m a native speaker of Swedish as well as a Swedish–English translator. I’d also love to show you how it’s used as a translation during Swedish broadcasts of the Olympics, for instance, but then I’d be violating copyright law. LivLovisa (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
No, you linked a Swedish-language glossary and summary from SVT, which says nothing about what term to use in English. I assumed that is why you started this discussion? As I said, I found it weird to say "hey let's use a borrowed French word in place of the Swedish term". I was hoping there was something more commonly used in English instead of more jargon. Our goal here is to make sure that by grouping these under one umbrella term that folks will actually be able to understand what we're talking about, not have to click more links to find out what those terms mean too. But what is your response to the actual question how to use repechage in articles if you believe it's the most accurate? I offered some suggestions to move forward and instead you wanted to continue to litigate the translation. Grk1011 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Why is uniquely special that it’s a loanword from French? You realise much of the vocabulary of English is loaned from French, right?
Either way, I know there isn’t a standard English translation. That’s exactly what I’m trying to fix, by translating the agreed-upon standard Swedish term.
To answer your question about usage, I imagine something like

she qualified to the final from the first heat via the repechage

and so on. Especially useful when talking about the same moment of the competition across different editions where they’ve gone by different names, like

they qualified for the repechage in 2016 and 2024

LivLovisa (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I would say no to that format since there is a consistent term used in refs for those events, whether it be "second chance" or something else year-specific. Grk1011 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
What specifically is wrong about saying

They qualified for the final via the repechage in 2002, 2016, and 2024.

instead of saying

They qualified for the final via vinnarnas val in 2002, via andra chansen in 2016, and via finalkvalet in 2024.

when they all refer to the same thing, and its Swedish equivalent

De tog sig till final via uppsamlingskval 2002, 2016, och 2014.

is already standard?
Your way of doing this is far more confusing. Using “second chance” like you suggest is also a translation of Swedish, which you complained about, and it’s anachronistic when applied to the entire span between 2002 to present day. I seriously don’t get why you’re so anti about this. LivLovisa (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
The difference is that the sources are translating it, not us editors. Use of "second chance" is widespread, repechage is not, nor does it actually appear in any sources about individual contests. Like I said "For 2014, a repechage round named Andra chansen (second chance) took place where..." would be a great use of the umbrella term. Grk1011 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
What sources? The sources I add regarding Melodifestivalen are gonna be almost exclusively in Swedish, so I have to translate it. The usage of "second chance" may be widespread, but it is flat out wrong to use it for some years. The reason why English language sources still use the wrong term is because there isn’t a standardised English translation, which is the problem I’m trying to fix. If Wikipedia is wrong, and everyone else is wrong because they get their information from Wikipedia, you can’t simply wait for that wrong statement to magically correct itself in the mainstream discussion before fixing it on Wikipedia; you’ll have to change it on Wikipedia first. LivLovisa (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
If you have a solution that's WP:V and from a WP:RS then we can do something. If the reliable sources don't present things the way you feel they should be, I don't have a solution for you. Grk1011 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
While I do personally support the potential inclusion of the word "repechage" as a catch-all term here, I do have to agree with Grk1011 that it's not our place to impose a term when reliable sources don't back it up in English. Having a quick look for the 2025 edition a lot of reliable sources continue to use "second chance" as the default term, mainly I would say because it was the name for so long. See some examples below:
Even "finalkval" as a loanword appears to be more common among reliable sources that "repechage" right now. The only sources I can see using "repechage" for this are typically social media sites (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter), which do not pass WP:RS. I think Grk1011's compromise wording (listing and linking repechage and then including the Swedish name after this) could work within Melodifestivalen articles; I don't know how we go about wording it in artist articles that isn't too wordy though. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I’m fine with using repechage as a description and then using the Swedish name, that’d work well.
I still think it should be used as a catch-all term in artist pages though, there is no other workable alternative unless you wanna explain the Swedish names on every single artist page. LivLovisa (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox song contest national year regarding proposed changes to Template:Infobox song contest national year. The thread is "Selection date" for internal selections and other proposed changes. Thank you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal on establishing articles under remit of WikiProject Song Contests and importance scale

PASSED
While input was limited, the general consensus after over a month was to proceed with the new importance scale and articles considered under the scope of WikiProject Song Contests.

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

As part of the renaming of the WikiProject, I believe it's important that we find consensus on which articles should remain under the remit of the new WP Song Contests, which should be removed from the project's scope, as well as how we scale them in terms of importance. I have outlined my thoughts on this, and would be grateful for any comments or suggestions as this is definitely not yet set in stone!

  • ...articles that describe a contest for each year
  • ...articles that describe a country's participation in an international contest
  • ...articles that describe a country's participation in an international contest for one year only
  • ...articles on songs which competed in one of the events covered by the project
  • ...other articles and lists about a particular event covered by the project
  • ...biographical articles on artists which competed in an event covered by the project

Things that I believe should not be included within the scope of the project:

  • Broadcasters which participate in/organise an event
  • Contest venues
  • Biographical articles for people who did not compete in an event, e.g.:
  • individuals related to a contest entry but which did not perform as a main artist, e.g. backing singers, songwriters, conductors, choreographers, creative directors
  • contest presenters
  • production staff
  • other performers (singers/dancers etc.) that were involved in performances outside of a contest's participating entries (e.g. opening/interval acts)
  • Articles for events which do not fall under the definition of a "song contest", including:
  • Any other articles currently listed as under the remit of WikiProject Eurovision which do not fall under the new criteria above, including:

Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I support this. I also like that songs have moved up a level from 'low' to 'mid'. Grk1011 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah that was a bit of a strange discovery for me to be honest, especially given how many good articles we have which cover the competing songs (60 as of 21 February 2025) compared to relevant biographical articles for singers (8 as of same date). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
We're likely to gain hundreds of songs from national finals as part of this change. That's ok, but just pointing out that while we lose some articles, we'll likely end up with many many more than before. As we look to remove banners, it may also make sense prior to that to determine which articles may warrant an AfD discussion. There are a lot of stubs that have been created over the years solely to accomplish the project Objectives, which were intended just for ESC, but have naturally expanded to cover all the various contests. It isn't clear if many are actually notable. I'm thinking the various "country in"," country in year", etc. articles. Examples: Belgium in the Eurovision Young Dancers, Belgium in the Eurovision Young Musicians, Kyrgyzstan in the ABU TV Song Festival and the like. Grk1011 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Do we think it might be worthwhile pinging all project members on this as well? Just noticing it's been almost a week and we've had very little engagement. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@Ktkvtsh: Sorry to rely on you a lot for this! I don't suppose you could ping all members about this discussion? Just conscious we've had very little engagement. Now whether that's because people aren't interested or haven't seen it is the question. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I will put something together. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8 it is  Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with this proposal. I support it. But presenters/hosts of the main ESC should be included.BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    @BabbaQ: The question is: would these articles be articles that members of this WikiProject are actually going to be maintaining regularly? The vast majority of presenters are only going to have presented a single contest (in fact only three individuals have presented more than one contest in its 70 year history), and it's only going to be a small part of their biography. It may not even be something that is part of the lede if a person has done a lot in their career. Also, why do you suggest that we limit it to just ESC presenters? I don't understand the idea that ESC presenters are somehow more notable, but people that presented any other TV song contest are not. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
While not exactly the same thing, I think we could make a policy-based argument here to omit producers and hosts. WP:PERFCAT (for categories) does a good job at separating out what's important. These people are performing duties/jobs that are largely replaceable by others who would do nearly the same task. They are important, but unlike the actual songs and performers, they themselves aren't integral to the contest, their position/role is. As Sims2aholic8 was hinting at, for many of these people, being part of the song contest is likely just one of hundreds of engagements they may take part in and their articles will never be cared for in the same way project members will for the actual songs and participations. We want to make sure the project's articles are articles that members could eventually see themselves bringing to GA, FA, etc. if they had time. Categories, prose, wikilinks, etc. are how we acknowledge the roles of the supporting staff. Grk1011 (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I second this. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Detailed televoting results

Should we show separate SMS/phone/online votes in the results table? I'm talking about the cases of Germany, Croatia, Benidorm Fest, etc. I know that broadcasters have published detailed results in this way, but I think all this information is not necessary and just takes up space unnecessarily. I'm only talking about those cases where votes are added up, i.e. no matter how they were cast, they are worth the same points

I suggest changing it from this:

Final
Draw Artist Song Jury Televote Total Place
Phone SMS Total Points
1 EoT "Bye Bye Bye" 30 4,488 4,844 9,332 21 51 8
2 Natalli "Dom si srcu mom" 2 2,549 987 3,536 8 10 15

To just this:

Final
Draw Artist Song Jury Televote Total Place
Votes Points
1 EoT "Bye Bye Bye" 30 9,332 21 51 8
2 Natalli "Dom si srcu mom" 2 3,536 8 10 15

Balandėliai (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think as long as we're not duplicating information then having multiple columns with votes from different sources is fine when these are provided by broadcasters, and I think providing this information is relevant to the reader. What I don't like to see is the same information being presented two different ways, e.g. the raw votes and the percentage share, which I believe is redundant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the harm as long as there is a valid reference. Sometimes we get close to running into WP:NOTSTATS issues, but the specific example here appears to be pretty straight forward and helpful for the reader (and not some sort of analysis for example). Grk1011 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I would remove it from the main table, and somehow either put the numbers in the jury table, or make a separate televoting table altogether — IмSтevan talk 17:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Call for help with logos

Hi to all.

I've been reviewing the ESC logo files we are using throughout history in the contest articles, and most of them are fantastic. They're in SVG format and/or have a transparent background, giving the corresponding contest article infobox a polished look. I've recently been able to add eight new logos in SVG myself. But there are sixteen that I haven't been able to improve, these are:

Is there anyone who could help with this please? Ferclopedio (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Basel meetup

Hi everyone! My humble myself and @Sims2aholic8 had the idea of organising a meetup among Wikipedians who contribute to this WikiProject. Since (probably) some of us will go to Basel for a mysterious event called the Eurovision Song Contest this May, we thought it would be a good idea to meet over a cup of coffee/tea, milkshake or espresso macchiatto. Who of you will be there and would like to come?

For a date, the proposal is Wednesday (14 May) during the afternoon. As for the location, if anyone knows a nice location in Basel, feel free to share it. Eurocafé could also be an option (it opens daily at 4pm). EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I'm up for this, but just wanted to make sure it got put into writing here too! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-finals and the automatic qualifiers

Now that we've seen how the role of automatic qualifiers is executed following 2024, I think it's time to revisit the format of the semi-final tables. They clearly have an impact on how the show is structured, take up as much space as a competing act, are presented as competing acts, and one of the reasonings behind opening voting at the start of the final is that the audience already saw all competing acts previously. Personally, I looked at how Festivali i Këngës tables used to be formatted, where despite automatic qualifiers for the final apearing during the show to perform their entries, they are still competing acts. Here is my proposal:

Key
 ‡  Automatic qualifiers
Participants of the first semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2025
R/O Country Artist Song
1  Iceland Væb "Róa"
2  Poland Justyna Steczkowska "Gaja"
3  Slovenia Klemen "How Much Time Do We Have Left"
4  Estonia Tommy Cash "Espresso Macchiato"
–  Spain ‡ Melody "Esa diva"
5  Ukraine Ziferblat "Bird of Pray"

— IмSтevan talk 17:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hasn't this issue already been discussed already? My take on this is that they are not competing, they're a bit like an interval act of some sort during the semis. Including them in the table is misleading as the table is mostly here for the results, which AQ don't have in the semis... Yoyo360message me 11:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
It looks like the previous discussion ended with us revisiting this at the next contest (now). Personally my thoughts have not changed. These tables are not really a run of show, but instead a way to present the results. Grk1011 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
As Grk pointed out, we were to wait to see how the shows work with them included, which we now have. Even if they don't compete in the semis, they are competing entries and are performed and presented as such, and I think they should have a spot in the table — IмSтevan talk 14:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I do agree that a further discussion is warranted, given we decided as a collective to wait and see how things panned out in Malmö and what the situation would eventually develop into for 2025. I concur with Grk1011 that my thoughts have also not changed on this. The tables are principally about the results of those shows, and since those six countries are not competing I believe it would be misleading to put them in this way. We don't have rows for any other opening or interval act, and although they are competing entries in the contest as a whole these are still guest performances for the semis and I don't believe they should be treated differently from those other guest performances. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I am very much in favour of this idea. It feels a bit misleading that they are not included in the table that shows the running order of the songs. And without them being there it doesn't quite give the full picture. I do understand the arguments that these tables are mainly for the results, but since they are the only tables that also include the running order, it would make sense to include them. Alternatively, the running order should be included in the other more detailed table, maybe? Zouki08 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: I also want to raise a point regarding the fact that many people will come to this article shortly prior to or during the show to see who is performing, and at first glance it's not that reliable considering the absence of AQs — IмSтevan talk 21:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011 and Sims2aholic8 here, and my views haven't changed either, the entries presented by the Big Five + host country during the semi-finals are not competing in the semi-final, and they are presented without a proper running order number. So including them in the table is misleading, in my opinion. Why not include the information about the "finalist guest performances" in prose? Like that, the nature of these performances would be more explicit and less prone to misinterpretation. This actually has been done in the 2024 article. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

So... what if we just added a second table right after all the semi-finalists? This would separate the AQ countries from the semi-finalists and also show that those countries appeared in the semi-final, but had a different status. Something like this:

Automatic qualifiers of the first semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2025
Country Artist Song Performs between
 Spain Melody "Esa diva"  Estonia and  Ukraine
 Italy Lucio Corsi "Volevo essere un duro"  Belgium and  Azerbaijan
  Switzerland Zoë Më "Voyage"  Croatia and  Cyprus

Balandėliai (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be down for that as well — IмSтevan talk 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I think a table might be overkill. It can just be mentioned as prose. Grk1011 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Grk1011. Also I believe that adding this extra table would be a violation of MOS:PROSE. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree that just a mention will be sufficient. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Couldn't we use simpler wording in prose so that there's no doubt about who sings after whom and it's easier to read than it is now? Ferclopedio (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
The thing is many people will just look at the table. They won't bother with the prose since the table is where they expect to see the running order/competing songs — IмSтevan talk 16:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Could we somehow include it in the already existing running order tables? Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
That's the whole point of this discussion, and Yoyo360, Grk1011, EurovisionLibrarian and myself have all said we oppose adding these entries to the existing tables. These tables are principally for the results of the shows, not the entire contest. If you look at it from that lens, I don't see how adding the automatic finalists to these tables makes sense. We don't add in any opening or interval acts to these tables, or provide a point-by-point script of the show, so why should this be considered any differently just because they are competing in the final? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah okay I understand. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Song_Contests/Archive_1&oldid=1292150128"