Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've been thinking really hard about how we could make the "Participants" section on {{Infobox song contest}} more simple for the reader. Here's what I propose:

• We change the heading "Participants" to "Participating countries"
• We change the labels "Debuting countries", "Returning countries" and "Non-returning countries" to "Debuted", "Returned" and "Became inactive" respectively, and we only add to these labels after the contest has taken place. This way, the labels won't simultaneously be able to appear as "is returning" or "is debuting" but rather only that they DID return or DID debut, which better reflects that the contest has taken place and helps the issue of people adding the countries to these labels too soon. On that note, as I already briefly mentioned, this means that the labels would only be updated once the contest has taken place, rather than when the final list of participants is released, however, I personally believe this practice would be better as it isn't definite that a country will take part until it has actually taken part in a contest that has taken place. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 10:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aris Odi:, I don't like "Became inactive" and "Non-returning countries", but for the other I think it's a good idea. --Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Esc0fans: I mean if we don't use "Became inactive" as opposed to the current "Non-returning", what could we use? We've already established that "Withdrawing" or "Withdrew" doesn't make sense. But I definitely think that the label needs to change somehow because "Non-returning" isn't clear enough to the casual reader in my opinion. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I like the proposal, but the one thing that gives me pause is that this infobox section is typically finalized when the official list is published at the participation deadline. We'd be holding off on this quick summary for several months during a time when the article is the most useful for interested readers. It will be very difficult to keep the infobox empty until the contest occurs. Grk1011 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Grk1011: that withholding the information until after the contest has happened is a bad idea.
Therefore, using a present progressive tense (debuting) is better than the past tense (debuted), in my opinion. Deancarmeli (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I also believe this proposal has merit, and I certainly believe that there is some work out there to make things simpler or improve the layout of articles, however like Grk1011 and Deancarmeli I also believe the wording proposed above is problematic for the same reasons. While I do agree with your point regarding a country isn't definite until the contest takes place, which is policy for a host of aspects on other Eurovision articles which are not updated until after the contest has occurred (e.g. in country articles, history, facts and figures etc.), I think ignoring the official list for the purposes of the infobox until after the contest takes place would be difficult to maintain; we already have a difficult enough time as it is to stop random updates with each returning country being announced, but to keep that up with an official list would be a lot of wasted effort in my opinion. I do agree with your point regarding the phrasing for "Non-returning" countries, however whether there is a better alternative I'm not sure. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What about "Non-continuing countries"? Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 04:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Continuing"/"Non-continuing" is inaccurate. ESC is not a continuous broadcast and each year's event is a separate one that countries have to individually sign up to. Furthermore, "returning" and "non-returning" should be aligned. IceWelder [✉] 11:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a big difference between what "Returning" means and what "Non-returning" needs to mean. Using "Non-continuing" works because a country can continue to sign up for the event every year or it doesn't sign up for the contest again the next. Just because ESC is not a continuous broadcast, doesn't remove the fact that a country can continue to sign up for the event every year. It's not like every year the event becomes a different contest. It will always be the Eurovision Song Contest that the country is signing up for. "Non-returning" is a homonym and thus is misleading because if it is as you said aligned with "Returning" then every country that has ever participated in the contest but is not in the said year could be included, i.e. in 2021 Luxembourg, Morocco, Slovakia, Turkey to name a few. The point of this label is to indicate a country that participated the year before but did not participate in the said year. The current label just doesn't make it easily understandable for the casual reader. I believe that "Non-continuing" makes it simpler for the reader to understand what the label means. Also, changing "Returning" to "Continuing" was never in my proposal. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 13:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If "returning" means "participating after not participating in the year prior", as it is currently used, the inverse "non-returning" would mean "not participating after participating in the year prior". In the same way that you define "non-returning", one could argue that "returning" could mean "participating after participating previously". I'm not sure going back-and-forth one the wording is useful, as no three-word piece could be explanatory enough for this. Since the current wording was approved by a small-scale consensus, I would propose to instead add an {{Abbr}} with an explanation to the existing phrasing. The template sandbox had a proposed wording since March, and I just updated it. Please review whether this is a plausible option. As Alucard 16 noted, whatever change to be implemented needs to gain consensus first. IceWelder [✉] 00:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Non-continuing" in my opinion is simpler than adding {{Abbr}} to the current "Non-returning". I simply do not believe in any way that "Non-continuing" can be misunderstood by the reader, thus using that label would not require the use of {{Abbr}}. Remember that the two labels "Returning" and "Non-returning/continuing" mean two different things. Their wording can be different. Why make the template overcomplicated with {{Abbr}} when there is a simpler proposal? Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 01:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Both "non-returning" and "non-continuing" are misleading in their own ways, like I pointed out above. {{Abbr}} allows us to properly explain the meaning of the field with a short sentence without cluttering the infobox itself. Off-topic, but there are also actual antonyms to "continue", which would be better suited than "non-continuing", in the event this wording was chosen (which would still require consensus). IceWelder [✉] 21:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has come up on other articles, but @009988aaabbbccc: and I have a disagreement over what dates should be in the "Selection date(s)" section of the Infobox on Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. My view is that both the article and song selection were announced on the same date, therefore that's the selection date. The other viewpoint is that since the song is not "released", then its selection date is later on. The latter appears to be how it was done in previous years. I'm not so sure it makes sense though. Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the selection date should be the date when both the artist and song were announced. The label doesn't say "Released", it says "Selection date(s)", so it doesn't make sense for the release date of the song to be placed under that label. Perhaps, therefore, the infobox needs "Released" added in somehow, although, the song's page already covers that information anyway. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 05:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

―JochemvanHees (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:ABU Song Contest 2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting! Grk1011 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you made the page of this edition???--Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Esc0fans: ABU Song Contest 2020  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dummelaksen:, sorry I mean ABU TV Song Festival--Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dummelaksen:, if you need it here there is the italian page (under construction)

Good morning everyone!!! Have you heard about the Turkvision 2020?? have you made the page???
to answer me, ping me pls, tank you --Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC) @Aris Odi:--Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Esc0fans: I have added some content on Turkvision 2020 to the articles Turkvision Song Contest and Germany in the Turkvision Song Contest, but have not created the article Turkvision Song Contest 2020 as all the secondary sources I have found come from Eurovoix World, so I am not sure whether the 2020 contest would be notable enough to merit an article. If there are other secondary sources found, then we can consider creating the article.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was intending to fill in the scoreboard using this live stream archive from one of the Romanian broadcasters, but I noticed that TMB calculated wrong total scores for 16 out of 26 territories (enough to raise Tyumen from 24th to 4th and rob Azerbaijan of third prize). I double-checked, then I compared my table with the ones from the other wikis covering the contest and I found that the Norwegian one is currently the only correct one. They all use the wrong totals, though, and they don't explain the discrepancy. How should we treat this situation here, on the English Wikipedia? —  Andreyyshore  T  C  15:21, 24 Dec 2020 (UTC) 

I haven't looked at the information myself, but it sounds like you should be able to use the "real" totals per WP:CALC. The raw data is readily available (right?) and simple arithmetic/calculations like totaling scores would appear to be covered. Is it just the tables that are incorrect in the sources, or are you hinting that there is a mistake in the standings that no one is talking about in the sources? Grk1011 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me towards WP:CALC. My source for the individual points given by each juror is a video (a mirror of the official YouTube stream, which has since been made private); the other wikis are simply presenting (or trying to present) the points and the totals as they were shown during the show, without adding any note about the wrong totals and without citing any meaningful source. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  16:02, 24 Dec 2020 (UTC) 

I'm going to be bold for now: I'll add the individual scores and keep an extra column for the "official" totals. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  16:12, 24 Dec 2020 (UTC) 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eurovision Choir 2021 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision Choir 2021 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

 dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi people!!! Theb page about the countries at ABU tv Song Festival are not complete. In Italina wikipedia yopu can find 3 of them complete the other i'll make it in the future (maybe)--Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Why for Ukraine at Turkvision 2016/2017 we have the same information of 2020? --Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 10:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Esc0fans: Can you provide some links? I can't figure out what you're talking about. Grk1011 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Ukraine in the Turkvision Song Contest and Turkvision Song Contest 2016. I think the problem is the name of the song, because it's possible that in 2016 were Natalia selected and in 2020 the delegation decided for send again her. I found the same3 problem in italian wiki--Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 17:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Esc0fans: I am not very familiar with the contest, but sources appear to support the same artist and song name for both 2016 and 2020. Grk1011 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is true – all sources confirm the same artist and song in both contests.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:009988aaabbbccc has recently removed the withdrawn entries from the participation tables and put them in a separate table on several country in contest articles without consulting the WikiProject. I was wondering what everyone else thinks about this new style, because I think it has merits, but it would be better if 009988aaabbbccc looked for other opinions before making mass edits.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This only makes sense if all non-participating entries were separated, including disqualified entries and those of canceled contests. Furthermore, since we are already using a color key, this might introduce unnecessary bloat. Then again, separating this will shorten/split the color key, which might make it more accessiable. I'm neutral on the topic, but if necessary, 009988aaabbbccc should establish consensus first. It should be consistent either way. IceWelder [✉] 22:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we can be very logical on this. A withdrawn entry did not participate, so it doesn't belong in a participation table. So I'm all for a separate table. Hhl95 02:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

I've begun changing the order of the columns in the participation tables from "artist, language, song" to "artist, song, language" to match the contest by year articles. However, I assumed that most of the participation tables already matched the year articles, and that the ones that didn't were just a few exceptions. But actually the vast majority of the participation tables are "artist, language, song", so I want to form a consensus before I change any more tables. Personally, I don't think "artist, language, song" makes sense, especially compared to "artist, song, language".  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I support your change to move the language column after the song's name. Grk1011 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense; the song takes center-stage. IceWelder [✉] 22:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that is logical. However, I can also see the logic of putting the language first, as a sort of message to the reader "what you're going to read in the next column, is in the X language." Hhl95 02:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

I propose that we stop using fansites like Eurovoix as a source and instead use the direct sources from broadcasters. They are too unreliable to be considered good sources in my opinion.

Eurovoix for example puts most of their sources below their article so we can just use those. — TheThomanski | t | c | 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think they're unreliable? I'd be cautious of relying primarily on sources from broadcasters – they're primary sources which aren't independent.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There are certain sources that we discourage use of. Past discussions and a summary (that I just found out existed) can be seen here and here. I do think it needs to be updated, most notably for Wiwibloggs given their more recent prominence in the field. Grk1011 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

We've had similar discussions in the past. Fansites might be reliable but that needs to be determined individually. I proposed a few last time but there was no clear consensus. IceWelder [✉] 22:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, given a lot of the JESC articles have been WP:REFBOMBed with Eurovoix references, that may be a big undertaking. I personally don't think we should avoid fansites totally as many of them are very reliable for news, but is there any scope for potentially re-opening a review of our recommended sources? In particular I think Wiwibloggs needs to be upgraded to reliable due to their prominence as Grk has said, and I believe Oikotimes needs to be downgraded. ser! (chat to me). 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support a further review of the sources we use across the project, as three years is a long time and things are likely to have changed significantly (Wiwibloggs being a prime example). I also share the concerns raised about relying too much on primary sources, e.g. broadcasters, but diversity of sourcing is of course important, so if we can determine prime examples of reliable JESC sources then hopefully our articles will be improved by the variety. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think an in-house update of the list is in need. Any questions that result could be directed to the WP:RS noticeboard. RE Eurovoix, my problem with them (even though I still trust their information) is that many are translations of foreign sources or paraphrasing of broadcaster sources with some added background details. In these scenarios, as TheThomanski pointed out, the links to the "source" sources are at the bottom of the article and probably should be used instead. The problem with primary sources is only when they are making claims. General background information like dates, participants, etc. is probably best sourced from them instead of through an intermediary. Grk1011 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_20#Years_in_bold It seems like many people wanted to keep empty rows for the years of non-participants, and I agree. The current format is just very annoying to use as you don't easily see which year a country participated, unlike before, when you could very easily see which years a country skipped. A table going from say 1977 to 1981 with no information in between makes no sense and is a stupid decision. We should go back to how the tables looked like before 2020 when you could easily see this information. I would be prepared to start an editing war about this. 83.248.200.34 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The table is a list of participants and so years that have no participants do not have rows. If there is a row missing, a country did not participate. Can you elaborate on how that is misleading to people? Grk1011 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

For several reasons. First of all, a casual reader might ask "was there no contest at all that year?". Sure, most people will know that, but to really find it out will take an extra step. Also, it looks incomplete, as if someone forgot to add the entry. Just having a row saying "Did not participate" would make it much more clear. It would also be of help if wanting to find out which year a country did not participate. At least I often used the tables to find that information and it was really easy to find it when there were rows stating that said country did not participate that year. Now you have to carefuly read the years to find this information. Also, in other articles regarding other subjects this is generally easy to find, an example being pages of football teams particpating in World Cups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_national_football_team#FIFA_World_Cup 83.248.200.34 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that these are not just a list of participants, but an article about the country's history in the contest. A country not participating is part of its participation history so it makes sense to include it in the table, as the table is meant to provide an overview. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we should go back to the former format which mentioned that a country did not participate or was relegated. Hhl95 02:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Rows that say "Did not participate" are not needed. The History section is a better way to explain a country's absence with some details instead of rows saying "Did not participate". At most at the top of the table the note can say "The following lists Ukraine's entries for the Eurovision Song Contest along with their result. Years where Ukraine did not participate are not included in the table" or something like that. If the reader can't take the time to read the "History" section or even a small generic note before the table as to why a year is missing... well that is not Wikipedia's fault the information is there on one page. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The same format is used for similar pages on the Olympics, such as Hungary at the Olympics. So there seems to be a wider consensus over the benefits of this format. I think the point is that, as a given, Eurovision takes place at a sequence of 1 year (the Olympics at a sequence of 4 years). It's not a spontaneous event that gets extra editions when it's successful and that could be cancelled for lack of animo or whatever reason. Eurovision, like the Olympics, is an institution. Like in the Olympics, every eligible country takes part and is socially expected to take part, unless they have a reason not to. Therefore, interruption of that sequence should be mentioned in the table. Hhl95 08:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

While I wouldn't be opposed to rows detailing years in which countries did not participate per se, I think it could look very disjointed in some cases, going from one row with details of a song and placing to a blank row detailing an absense. I think it could also open up a can of worms as well, because it's not as simple as just a country not participating. How would we include information when countries were relegated for example? In a case like Russia it's not as simple as saying they did not participate in 1998 and 1999, because they were relegated in '98 and then didn't participate in '99. Luxembourg as well were relegated in '94 but then didn't return, so how best would we spell that out? What about for countries that have since dissolved, e.g. Yugoslavia or Serbia and Montenegro, which in 1992 were the same country; do we include extra rows in the YU article for 1992 to 2003 when they changed their name, and then another row to say they no longer existed? And for successor states like Slovenia or Croatia do we include a row before 1993 for their history in Yugoslavia? I partly feel that these articles are not the right place to delve into the complexities of this, and a lot of this information is captured in the "Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest" list in the "Participating countries by decade" section as well, so potentially, as mentioned above, a note before each table outlining that these are only the songs which competed and not a full history of when they may or may not have participated may be best suited, particularly if we then link to the "Countries" article which has greater detail on all this information. Of course if there is greater consensus to implement this then fair enough. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: The rows were there before but were removed (I'm guessing via consensus) no matter what the reason for the withdrawal they just said "Did not participate". The only time there isn't a row at the end was if the country was dissolved. Really there is no need for those rows as the History section can clearly explain each absence better than a generic row. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the former way to be somewhat hectic. The tables are specifically a "list of contestants" and should therefore only list years that have contestants. They are not an all encompassing history of participation meant to replace the written section above them. Grk1011 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Rows before first/last participation are unnecessary, I agree, especially if a country was dissolved or didn't exist yet. There doesn't seem to have been a consensus on this change based on the discussions from 2020, in fact many seemed to favour keeping the older format. The history section can give details on why a country didn't participate (relegation, withdrawal, disqualification, etc.), but I still think this information should be in the table as is the norm in sports articles. If I'm looking at which years a country didn't participate, reading through a lengthy history section is inconvenient for finding out information that could so much simpler be found if it was added to the table. Certain articles (Monaco, France and Luxembourg for example) does have sections specifically about absences which is at least better than just having it baked into the history section, but some articles such as UK, Sweden and Yugoslavia lacks such a section completely. The Sweden article has this information only in the header while the other two has it baked into the history section, meaning the articles are quite inconsistent. 83.248.200.34 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Potentially yes there could be some work to flesh out the history section in each of the country articles. However I believe the "contestants" table should not be a catch-all to describe the entire history of that country's participation in the contest, and as far as I'm aware it has never been called the "history" table or section, and I think trying to force it into that kind of structure would not make sense. To bring it back to the Olympics example above, I think it works there before there is limited information being displayed, essentially just numbers, but for our Eurovision pages, when you have text columns and then contests with or without semi-finals, adding more exceptions like added rows for non-participation makes it more difficult to read and understand in my opinion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was ever called the "history" table, but for many years it included the non-participation years, and I personally (and probably others) used it for that information as well. I also disagree that adding rows for non-participation makes it more difficult to read and understand. I think that would make it easier to read. As it is now, Yugoslavia for example, having it go from 1976 to 1981 without an empty row in between makes the table look broken and incomplete. It does raise questions (was there no contest that year? has it not been added?) requiring an extra step to finding it out. Another comparison would be F1 Grand Prix articles (Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Grand_Prix and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Grand_Prix ) also using empty rows stating "not held" or "cancelled" when they were not held. I find them much easier to navigate than if they would have grouped everything together. 83.248.200.34 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I think we should add rows for when the participation string was interrupted. But not before it started or after it ended. For example, in the case of Luxembourg, we just stop at 1993. But if they decide to return in 2022, we would add a row saying like "Did not participate 1994-2021", followed by a row for their 2022 participation. So it should not be further detailed in the table, but I think there should be a row like that to make up for the interruption of the sequence. And like you already suggested, we should not work out too many types of non-participation. But I think it would be logical to use "Relegated" in cases of relegation, as it was not the country's own free decision not to participate. Moreover, relegation worked like an official "semi-final" system for Eurovision. As we use "Did not qualify" for cases with semi-finals, I think we should use "Relegated" for cases of relegation. Again in the example of Luxembourg, we would only add it if they decide to return. Then there would be a row "Relegated in 1994" followed by a row "Did not participate in 1995-2021". So I think that would be the three options to use: "Did not qualify", "Relegated in year X" and "Did not participate in year X". Without further specification as to why. That specification could be added in-text before or after the table. So it's not an encompassing history of participation; it's just making up for the interruption of the sequence, which I think is important. And in my opinion, it looked very clear and clean when we used that format, so I don't agree with the 'disjointed' look. We don't need to add a row for every subsequent year of non-participation. Denmark and Italy for example had long strings of non-participation. They could just be in one row, specifying the range of years like I did in the example of Luxembourg above.

In the above examples, the idea is that the row encompasses all columns, so it looks very clean and should not make it more difficult to read.. Another option is to keep the column for the host cities and replace it with the years the country did not participate. For an example, see China at the Olympics (ignore the "Part of ROC" row, I'm not advocating for such rows in Eurovision, although I wouldn't be against it.) Hhl95 18:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

I wouldn't be as opposed to the implementation of that used in the sporting articles included above, but I feel it works better in that situation because of the format of their tables. These tables are much smaller in scope and contest, with only a small number of columns and no sorting, whereas in the Eurovision tables there's a lot more detail to consider. Adding the extra rows can also mess with the sorting function, going by the previous example highlighted of the Romania article from January 2019, at least on my PC and browser, when attempting to sort by year it does not go chronologically but ends up putting the "did not participate" rows first, followed by other years in which the country did not participate before actual entries are sorted correctly. Potentially this is fixable with the right implementation, but there are also issues I find with sorting by other columns that I don't find particularly intuitive. If we were to remove sorting then potentially as an idea it might work, but I wouldn't recommend that either as the sorting functionality adds a lot in my opinion to the usability of the article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I just tried the same article. When I sort by year, it does so chronologically, since the year column is not included in the 'Did not participate' row. When I sort by artist, language or title, it does put the 'Did not participate' first. Honestly, I don't see a problem there. You can just skip those rows and see the rest. But this example does confirm for me that we should not let the 'Did not participate' row encompass the year column, so that chronological sorting is still working like it should. I disagree about the point of detail and columns. I don't think that would be a problem. Do you remember how the tables were before? Hhl95 23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Hello all! As you probably noticed, I've been trying to add a section to the different tables to acknowledge conductors at the contest. My main source is Andtheconductoris.eu, which is a pretty expansive source of info regarding the contest and first-hand perspectives from conductors, contestants, and songwriters. I think the conductors are worth acknowledging since they've played such an important role in Eurovision history, and I remember feeling disappointed when the first attempts at conductor sections were all deleted. I don't see why the site is being treated as less-than-legitimate, as virtually all the information on it is easy to verify via other Eurovision websites, the Eurovision pages on this very site, and, of course, every single broadcast of the contest that's easily accessible on YouTube. If the issues are in regards to the nationalities of each conductor, that's easy to leave out, but I don't think it's fair to completely erase that aspect of Eurovision history. If there's a neater way of including this information (such as, as one user suggested, a separate table), I would be happy to discuss it. I won't add more for now (although I may continue to edit pages for national finals that featured multiple conductors where information is available and accurate, as I've done for a few from Denmark, Israel, Portugal, and Yugoslavia already), but I don't think this is an idea that should be dismissed.--BugsFan17 (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@BugsFan17: I agree that the articles should list the conductors if possible. I'm skeptical of andtheconductoris.eu because even though many of the conductors on the site can be verified with other sources, their disclaimer says "The information is provided by the editorial team and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose." so I don't think it meets Wikipedia standards – it's unclear where the information comes from. And if we can verify the conductors are correct from other sources, why don't we just cite those sources instead? Secondary sources are preferable but primary sources like eurovision.tv or the broadcasts themselves can be used too. That's why I undid your edit – and the older lists of conductors were removed because the reliability of andtheconductoris.eu was called into question, not because anyone thought we shouldn't list the conductors.

I would also prefer if the conductors were listed in a separate list or table like they were before, so the participants table doesn't get too crowded.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dummelaksen: All good points! I just tried a new way of formatting it on the Greece page. I think that ought to work. Plus I found a more reliable source.--BugsFan17 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I like it as a separate table, so thank you for doing that! Grk1011 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also like these separate tables, so good work BugsFan17! I would certainly also consider the Roxburgh books to be much more reliable than andtheconductoris.eu, although he does cite them as a source as well in his books. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In a couple of WP:Good Article reviews I've been a part of, I've had a reviewer point out the inconsistency in how we refer to the grand final. Historically, we've just called it the "final" or the "Eurovision final". Doing some research, it seems that the official name for that round of the event is "grand final"; this is what the Eurovision.tv website uses. If we agree with this, there will be a couple of templates to adjust and some minor rewording of articles. I didn't want to start wholesale making changes without having a couple more opinions on the matter. Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grk1011: seems like it would be worthwhile to change it – "grand final" is less easily mistaken for "semi-final" if you're not reading carefully.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, really is an unneeded big change just to add one word, "final" is a perfectly fine word to use, we don't use the EBUs manual of style, we use Wikipedia's where we avoid official naming and puffery in articles. -- AxG / ✉  21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, if the name of the event is "grand final" then that is what we should be using. Wikipedia's MoS tells us to use the official name and/or the most common name. Sources, especially from the EBU, support "grand" being included. Some examples include EBU, ESCXtra, ESCToday and the BBC. I really don't think we have the option to rename the event on our own. Grk1011 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Many sources don't, such as The New York Times, Euronews, NPR, Vanity Fair, Independent.ie, and Fast Company. Adding "Grand" seems to only add puffery. Lastly, keep in mind that the template is not just used for the ESC. "Final" is not ambiguous and fine as-is. IceWelder [✉] 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think puffery is at play here. If it did have some elaborate name, like Ultimate Super Grand Final Extravagenza used in your example before, we would still have a section called that as it is the name of the event. It would read something like "[...] is the final round of the contest", but very much still included. The infobox is a different story, though it was created specifically for Eurovision and then shoehorned for other contests, but code can be created for it to say other things, regardless. I think we should be looking at MoS policy mostly in this case, not whether we feel it constitutes puffery, which is subjective. I believe that "grand" in this specific use is to note that it is the ultimate or last final (after the semi-finals), not that it is a "grand" event. Grk1011 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Final" is not ambiguous against "semi-final"/"semifinal"; both terms are well-defined. A size descriptor does not enhance the clarity here (especially since, technically, a semifinal could see more participants than the actual final). Regarding the puffery aspect, maybe ping a MOS regular who could give an expert opinion on this. IceWelder [✉] 00:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that "grand" is not used as an optional word to describe the final. It is part of the name of the event. Grk1011 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

But we are not bound by the EBU's nomenclatures. We use plain, MOS-conform English. This is also a futureproof solution in case they ever settle on a different name (be it "Ultimate Super Grand Final Extravaganza" or something else). The same is true vice-versa, as not all past finals have been called "Grand Final". Furthermore, although you will likely disagree with this notion, other events that pertain to this template do not use the name, such as the JESC, Turkvision, and so on. If there is no point beyond representing which name the EBU currently uses for the event, and the change adds no apparent clarity, I honestly do not see a point for inclusion. Usage in sources is mixed, and it is not widespread here either: I skimmed the articles of the past 18 contests (those that use the multi-show format), and only four of those (2008, 2011, 2012, 2014) use the term "Grand final" prominently, and all of these were only changed last week, including three edits by you.[1][2][3][4] IceWelder [✉] 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course I started changing them. I wanted to align the term with what the contest uses for articles about the contest. It's not about what it currently uses, because it seems it has always been grand final dating back to the introduction of the semi-finals for 2004. At some point some housekeeping has to be done to make sure our practices aren't inconsistent with sources, especially sources for the event itself. This isn't making a change, it's making a correction. Grk1011 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The current Eurovision.tv website represents the current term usage. Contemporary usage was just "the Final".[5][6][7][8] IceWelder [✉] 20:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I stand corrected with the older contests! I suppose it would make sense to keep those as "final" per their sources. I wonder at what point the contest decided to change their terminology? I would still push for grand for the modern contests since it's clear that is what they're called. It would be helpful to have some additional voices in this matter. Grk1011 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What about reformatting the Infobox template to allow for a syntax like:

| event1name = First semi-final
| event1date = 22 May 2012
| event2name = Second semi-final
| event2date = 24 May 2012
| event3name = Grand final
| event3date = 24 May 2012

This would allow for inclusion, where strictly necessary, of the EBU's official namings, while not hindering any other use of the template. IceWelder [✉] 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a change along those lines. What you wrote earlier got me thinking. There was talk a few years back about the future of this WikiProject since we sort of just started adopting similar contests, whether they are part of the Eurovision family or not. Perhaps it's time to fully re-organize. Something like "WikiProject Song Contests", of which Eurovision would be a work group. This would be similar to San Marino within Microstates (leaving aside that those projects are "inactive"). They share a talk page banner. It would be a rather large undertaking, but maybe we're reaching the point where it's more or less time? Grk1011 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand though why we have to copy the official term? To me, "Grand Final" has always just seemed like a marketing term, whereas "final" is the common name for the final matchup in an elimination tournament. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

My stance is that it is not a descriptive term, but the event's name. Removing "grand" is like deciding you're going to call it the "last round". We're presented with a peculiar situation because the contest has retroactively applied "grand" to all previous contests with semis, and all of the recent and future ones are consistent in using "grand". If the decision is to omit "grand", we're sort of obligated to add background sentences to every article such as "the Grand Final serves as the final round for the contest". It just seems unnecessary when we could just use "grand" to begin with. This is a relatively important distinction because as we bring articles up to GA, FA, etc, we'll need to explain why we've simplified the name of the event and are inconsistent with the sources that have the sole authority in naming the event. Based on my previous GA submittals, I don't find a consensus that their name is puffery to be convincing. Grk1011 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We should remain using the status-quo of "final" just for its simplicity as the standard English word for the event, past, present, and future; as well as consistency with the national finals that simply use "final" or else you'd end up with paragraphs referring to "X in the Melodi Grand Prix final" and "X in the Eurovision grand final" on the same page. Also there is no need for basically duplicate fields in the infobox template to accommodate the ESC, it is no longer solely for the ESC anymore. We don't need to add "the Grand Final serves as the final round for the contest" to articles, people know what a final is, no other article has had problems before whether it be here or a football tournament as to what a final is. "[W]e'll need to explain why we've simplified the name of the event and are inconsistent with the sources that have the sole authority in naming the event." Sources don't have sole authority to what Wikipedia names their articles whether it be a primary or secondary source, Wikipedia does through guidelines at WP:TITLE. -- AxG / ✉  22:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course sources have that authority, that's why any article that has name other than it's official name has the official name in parenthesis or some sort of explanation within the article. We see this a lot with company names for example. Regardless, this doesn't really have anything to do with the Infobox template. We're talking solely about the article body now. WP:TITLE is not the guideline that governs terminology within articles itself, it's only for article titles. Grk1011 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If "Grand Final" is the name of the event though, why do most people not call it "Grand Final" all the time? I only ever see that term ever used as a marketing phrase. Even in the videos on the official ESC YouTube channel, such as here, the narrator just says "the Eurovision final". ―JochemvanHees (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

With the current website redesign, they changed the terminology. Grk1011 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not link to the website. Most people still simply say "final". As others pointed out, we don't have to blindly copy the EBU's marketing terms. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a marketing term, but the actual name of the event and therefore something that we always include in some way. Grk1011 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, why not just do that then? When introducing the event the first time, say "Grand Final", and after that just say "final" like everybody else does. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but some of the others above also believe that to be unneeded. Grk1011 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we are actually supposed to use Eurovision nomenclature. If Eurovision did not exist, we would not have Wikipedia pages about it. So the point is, all the information we put on here, finds its source ultimately in the fact that it exists in the way it exists and not in other ways. In other words: a Grand Final should be called a Grand Final because it is a Grand Final.

Related to this, I'd like to bring up another point. I think '(Grand) final' should only be used for contests that had a semi-final (1993, 1996 and 2004-now). A final conludes something larger. A contest without semi-finals is just an event, not a final. The Eurovision website also goes by that logic. Hhl95 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

As I mentioned before, it is standard to call the final round in an elimination tournament the "final", even if there also were semi-finals. As far as I can tell, grand final is used to describe a final round in the final. The only reason I see why we should use the term Grand Final is because that's what Eurovision uses, not because it actually makes sense to call it that. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"Even if there also were semi-finals"? I think you understand me wrongly. (Grand) final should be used exactly when there are also semi-finals. My point is that it should not be used when there were NO semi-finals. Hhl95 17:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Hi Hhl95. After trying to champion this cause, I sort of pulled back when it was noted that the contest retroactively applied the name Grand Final to previous contests (contests that were consistently just "Final" in sources for many years). Only the last handful of years has it been consistent with "Grand" and it has been difficult to determine exactly when they changed their terminology and why. I think the loose compromise was to call it the Grand Final when the sentence is explanatory, but just use "final" when referring to the round. Grk1011 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Hhl95 does raise a good point regarding using the word "final" on articles for contests prior to 2004. It seems a bit bizarre to call it a final in the infobox for the date of the contest when there was only one event. Of course the official website also uses the term on their web pages for those contests, but that is most likely also a retroactive change. Should we consider changing the terminology in the infoboxes for those years where there was only one event to "date" or something similar? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, like I said, the official website does not use the word '(Grand) final' for contests before 2004. Not even in 1996 and 1993. But maybe I look at the wrong pages? I just did a quick search on 'History by year' and the word 'final' does not appear in the pages I clicked on. Hhl95 23:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Hhl95 If you look in the sidebar where details such as data, venue, presenters etc. are displayed, for contests before 2004 the date of the contest is titled "final". e.g. 2003, 1996 and others. Since the 1993 and 1996 contests are not considered to have "semi-finals" in the modern sense these dates don't appear there. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes I see it now. So I guess we have two options then, on this matter. Either do we follow logic, which is my proposal, or we follow the Eurovision website. Hhl95 20:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC+1)

I think we should abandon mentioning the outcome of the OGAE voting on the pages of official Eurovision events. It doesn't have any additional value and their 'voting' is usually not in line with the actual result, so their predicting value is non-existent. Also it is in no way officially associated with the Eurovision Song Contest or the EBU and their voting and/or result has no place in the actual Contest. It is very subjective information without a function. Another issue is that it presents an alternative reality, as if the Eurovision result could have been otherwise. People will always compare the OGAE voting with the official Eurovision result, and people could start questioning which outcome is more legitimate. I think Wikipedia is not the place to give room to such issues. Additionally, it gives false importance to the top 5. What's the difference between 5th to be included and 6th to not be included, for example? Long story short: I think this section needs to be removed. And if people still like to see OGAE results on Wikipedia, they could create a separate page dedicated to OGAE voting results over the years. If we cannot agree on removal of this section, an acceptable solution could be to include it in prose, explaining in short what the OGAE voting is and who ranked first. Hhl95 02:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

It does not give the top five anymore importance than the rest a top five is a common cutoff point. OGAE is notable which is why it has survived other discussions. The idea for the article is to have a complete picture. Having the section does not cause people to question which is more legitimate. Also a list of OAGE results having their own article is not warranted and actually gives more importance to OAGE voting than justified then just having it as a section at the bottom of the main contest page. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Placing it at the main contest page, regardless where, gives it way more importance, as it insinuates that it is in any way officially part of the Eurovision Song Contest. So disconnecting it from the main page gives it less importance, as that insinuation disappears and it will be harder for people to find it, since they have to actively look it up if they want to see it. But by all means, it is subjective information which I think shouldn't be at Wikipedia at all. Not at the contest page nor at a separate page. See also WP:SUBJECTIVE. And as per WP:WEIGHT, "the views of tiny majorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." So any proposal to keep the OGAE voting goes straight against Wikipedia policy. Hhl95 09:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

I don't personally have any issue with including the OGAE voting in contest pages as things currently stand. I think the right balance has been captured in including the top 5, with a link to the rest of the results should anyone be interested. While yes, the poll may not be officially held or sponsored by the EBU or contest organisers, I think OGAE as an organisation has an important place within the Eurovision community, given members get access to tickets early, are involved in some countries selection processes, etc., and so I think the poll results do have a place in these articles. As things stand it's certainly not a prominent feature of the article and can potentially provide some insight into the thoughts of Eurovision fans in the run-up to the contest compared to how things panned out in real life, and reading into WP:WEIGHT I don't believe this falls under a "tiny minority" given the reach of the member organisations which are voting in the poll (over 40 clubs). While not all Eurovision fans are members of OGAE, and there are certainly other Eurovision fan polls out there which are absolutely not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, I think including the OGAE poll results is apt under the circumstances given the requirement of membership of an organisation which, if not endorsed by the EBU then is certainly accepted by them. I'm certainly open to other interpretations however and happy to listen to dissenting views on this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT gives the example of flat Earth theories. I looked it up, and the Flat Earth Society, which is just one of many, has about 90k followers on Twitter. I suppose the whole flat Earth theory has much more followers worldwide than just 90k. But still it constitutes a tiny majority for Wikipedia. In that case, OGAE is certainly a tiny majority either. According to their own website, they have about 10k members. No matter how many countries they encompass, that's a really small number compared to a show that is watched by 200 million people and aims at a potential audience (participating countries) of about 600 million. I honestly think it's rather ridiculous to take 10k people so serious and again, 10k is just not enough to escape the "tiny majority" rule. Hhl95 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1)

WP:WEIGHT also states that other viewpoints published by reliable sources are "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". I think including OGAE voting as things currently stands is in proportion, given the news it generates among the fandom in the run-up to the contest, even if it's not particularly reported externally to fansites. I also don't know how we define the cut-off point for the "tiny minority"; is it less that 1% or bigger than that? Are we measuring it against the entire global population, or all ESC viewers, or only those that can vote in the contest? Or is it a measure against just the ESC fandom? If it's the latter then I think this minority wouldn't be as tiny compared to the numbers mentioned above. On a related point, would we also continue to include the Barbara Dex Award results? Surely if you remove one based on weight you'd have to remove the other, and the Dex award probably has an even smaller voting base as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the OGEA results should be included. But only when completed. It is a professionally made vote amongst Eurovision fanbases all over Europe and around the world.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think fandom is certainly not a legitimate measuring, simply because you can't measure it. And Wikipedia isn't only consulted by Eurovision fans. But I think with any of the other measurements, it really is a tiny majority. I don't see how 10k voices are important in a contest that encompasses an audience of 200 million and a potential audience of 600 million. 10k would already be a very small number compared to 1 million. Let alone hundreds of millions. OGAE doesn't even constitute the majority of Eurovision fans. By far not, since, I suppose, there are millions. The ESC channel on YouTube as almost 4 million subscribers for example. Even compared to those 4 million, 10k is a tiny majority, I'd think.

I wouldn't be opposed to removing the Barbara Dex Award as well. So if that is a point of debate, you have my support in that. However, I do think that an award is something different. OGAE is simply replicating the Contest to present an alternative result to the contest. The Barbara Dex Award focuses on a specific aspect of the contest, namely clothing, that is not as such addressed by Eurovision itself. It does not present an alternative or anything. So with that argument, I can also see why we would leave the BDA up there. But again, I'm not against removing it together with the OGAE voting. Hhl95 23:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Hhl95, your rationale that ”only” a few 10 thousands plus votes at OGEA are a too small of a sample to be relevant are mute. The ESC final results are partly decided via the jury, the jury consists of 5-8 people. There is a small sample. Should the jury votes not be included as well. The OGEA results of this year should stay.BabbaQ (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hhl95 I'm not for or against including the OGAE results in the articles; personally I think they add another aspect to the event and provide some relevant information about the thinking ahead of the contest, but if there's wider consensus to not include then sure it should be removed. I wouldn't say that these results provide an alternative or are replicating the contest for the simple fact that it's based on music videos and audio recordings only. ESC of course has the whole live staging and performance aspects which aren't present in this vote. As I said before, I think there's enough publicity around the vote among the fandom during the reveal of the votes to warrant its inclusion in the article. Yes of course the article is not just consulted by Eurovision fans, but since it's a relatively small section and just the top 5 is included, I feel the right level of scope has been achieved, and I don't believe it detracts the article for its inclusion either. A number of "contest by year" articles have been promoted to GA with the OGAE section (e.g. ESC 2014 GA review) so at least among other Wikipedia editors that don't have the same Eurovision knowledge it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to being a good article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not convinced still. But if we can't reach consensus on exclusion, then I'd propose to leave out the table and make it written text. That way it is still included, but it takes away the pretence of an alternative outcome. So it could give a short description of the OGAE voting and tell which entry ranked first or so. Hhl95 21:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC+1)

BabbaQ The Eurovision jury is not an external opinion. It's part of the Eurovision voting system. So it does not fall under the tiny majority rule. Hhl95 21:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC+1)

Hhl95 I personally don't get your view that it's an alternate outcome. It's clearly stated in the lead for the section that it's a vote among the members of this club for their favourite, so it's clearly not the same as the actual contest result. I think going to the extreme of just focussing on the contest itself without any of the peripheral events going on around it at the time is detrimental and doesn't provide a full picture of the run-up to the contest. However saying this I think reducing the section to just text could be a potential compromise that I'm happy enough to sign up to. Adding a paragraph just explaining the top 3 in the OGAE poll could work, and on a side-note I would do a similar thing to explain the winner of the Barbara Dex Award as well for consistency given its similar status as a fan award. I would like to hear more consensus on this first though before go ahead and make any changes. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My argument of an alternate outcome is primarily based on the table. The table with its ranking, combined with the fact that OGAE votes with exactly the same objective as happens with the official Contest (namely to decide which is the best entry), makes it look like an alternative outcome. That is different for example for the BDA, where the objective for the voting is not the same. But I still don't see why we would consider the opinion of a fan club, so small in size, and not connected to the organisation of the ESC. There are probably much more fan clubs around, and possibly bigger ones, that we don't consider. Personally, I think that their presence and representation in Eurovision media can not count as a reason to consider their opinion. It's rather a sign of them being overrated by Eurovision fans, and I think on Wikipedia we should not go along with that overrating. We have to decide what is the appropriate rating. The idea to include them as written text, seems to be more on par with WP:SUBJECTIVE. But it does not provide a solution to the problem of WP:WEIGHT.

Quoting myself here: "We have to decide what is the appropriate rating." I think the appropriate place of OGAE in the whole Eurovision WikiProject is a short description on the main Eurovision Song Contest page. Similar to how Beyhive and Beliebers got a description on the pages on Beyoncé and Justin Bieber. And I think the OGAE does not deserve a place on the pages of every single edition of the ESC. I don't know any other example where a fan club gets such a prominent place. So any proposal to include them, should have a much better basis as to why they are Wikipedia-worthy.

Like you, I'd like to hear other argumentated views on this matter, since I think our positions are clear. But any outcome should be carried by more than just 2 people. Hhl95 05:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC+1)

I agree with "Hhl95" second-compromise choice-view. Got to an edit conflict with you, I address mainly to your willingness for simple text from your previous comment, to support text instead of table and also for winner only. I saw this discussion two days ago but deliberately waited to see if you persuade others to remove it completely. A year ago I also discussed on the 2019 contest talk page and raised the following: the still varied OGAE voters from over 40 countries including from farther continents; how in some countries OGAE members even keep the countries interested to participate and host competitors in their parties, also organizing huge line of parties in the host country on the contest's week; and Barbara Dex was also for me, as others, the biggest problem to agree for keeping, on same-scale of fans-poll, while removing OGAE based on alternative reality and confused readers. So for me also OGAE goes with significance and some involvement with the contest, but to only point the winner, and with other possible huge polls.

First, to further explain, why I support only winners here: I'v raised this same issues twice several years ago, and at the beginning I also introduced another option to show all places for pointing solely countries as in: "First to fifth places were… 6th- 10th were…" onward till last, and raised also the option to introduce points margin between 1st and 2nd place to highlight the winner's gap. Eventually, the winner or pointing all countries are the only objective values in a poll, compared to 2nd-to-last which have no stated individuality for any award or achievement in relation to each other, so for my view any cut-off falls on subjective judgment. If that helps gather further current opinions and anyway as further indicator, two other editors also agreed then when I raised text instead of a table, however they also agreed to only point the winner.

As only two more commented also the second time around, I didn't want to try implement that. If there will be consensus, I will be happy for anyone who is eager and wants to revert the table itself to a shortened one sentence text. With that, at this chance I also like to say that back then, along with the discussions on removing the table, I also worked and showed a shortened version for the introductory text, which I would like to show again and if agreed, of course I would like to implement.

At those discussions few years ago, and last year on the 2019 contest talk page which as I showed to "Hhl95", I shortened the OGAE introduction, and also worked on examples to shorten for the Barbara Dex and Marcel Bezencon on the earlier discussions, including the option to replace Bezencon table with simple text for its 3 categories. I'm suggesting this for the fourth time hopefully now with further opinions. If there's agreement to shorten those introductory paragraphs as well for all other awards/achievements, and so that I could implement those or something similar across the Eurovision Song Contest annual articles (I also support including any huge poll who has tens of thousands+ like huge polls on YouTube BTW):

• "The Marcel Bezençon Awards, named after the creator of the contest, honour the best competing songs in each contest, and were founded by Christer Björkman, Sweden's representative in the 1992 contest and its current Head of Delegation, and Richard Herrey, a member of the Herreys who won the 1984 contest for Sweden. First handed out during the 2002 contest, the awards are divided into three categories: Artistic Award, which went to Australia, Composer Award, which went to Italy, and Press Award, which went to the Netherlands. The winners are revealed shortly before the Eurovision final. *(Also easily possible to extend to separate sentences to add performers and composers).
• "Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision (more commonly known as OGAE), a network of over 40 Eurovision Song Contest fan clubs across Europe and beyond, conducts an annual voting poll before the main Eurovision Song Contest, allowing each member in each club to rank their favourite songs. The winner was Italy, with the song "Soldi performed by Mahmood." *(Possibly also written, composed by).
• "The Barbara Dex Award, named after the Belgian artist who came last in the 1993 contest in which she wore her own self-designed dress, is a humorous fan award to the worst dressed artist. Originally awarded by House of Eurovision from 1997 to 2016, and since 2017 by songfestival.be, the winner this year was Portugal's Conan Osíris."

I can see if someone sees difference to keep the Bezencon in a table as a professional award and with categories, but still don't really see a need for that either, and think all fan polls like OGAE and Barbara can be even under one paragraph, even if there's another huge poll to join to them and to give further public acceptance info. So, for OGAE I removed "non political non-profit", 1984 foundation since the poll isn't known to be conducted since that year, the founder also isn't someone famous for anything else. That's why on the other hand I did keep the names of Marcel Bezencon's famous founders who have Eurovision achievements, but still rephrased and especially shortened to use adjectives as links to the names of the persons who the awards are named after instead of repeating twice. If at least those removals for "non-profit" and links instead of repeating names can be acceptable before keeping discussing further reshaping stuff, then again, I would like to implement that. אומנות (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights אומנות and I agree for the most part! I would still keep the Bezencon tables as is, as I don't think it's on par to compare that with the OGAE or Barbara Dex awards. It's organised almost centrally by the EBU I believe, it's given prominent coverage on the official website during "Eurovision week", and while yes you could go down the route of "tiny minority" again, a lot of awards are decided by a small group of people and I wouldn't necessarily say that they're not encyclopaedic. I also think given the information we're trying to convey it might make more sense to keep as a table, and I don't think there's any confusion as expressed above of "alternate results" given who is voting for each award, but a bullet list with the same information as presented on the Eurovision website could work as well. Again I'm happy to hear other views on this and try to form a grand consensus. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I expressed Marcel Bezencon is professional voted by people with industry influence and on my sample kept its founders, as people with Eurovision achievements. My proposal to remove the table here doesn't relate to comparison for other awards or fan polls, or that I feel the reader will get confused, if you adressed that to me as well as you talked about this award section. I just think that everything peripheral which can be explained in few sentences, doesn't warrant a highlighted showing, other than text. And I also couldn't agree with Hhl95 last year in regards to alternative reality confusing the reader, and to keep Barbara Dex while removing OGAE. With the option of a bullet list, I actually prefer the framed looking table here, but without repeating flag icons which may also clash with the repetitive icons policy and is examined under "FA" standards (another thing I previously raised); then may also reduce the "alternate replacement" feel compared to the main table. And I'll also be happy to hear opinions in regards to the introductory text at least for the small stuff I suggested to remove ("non-profit, non-governmental...", links on adjectives instead of repeated names) which also won't clash with other relatively bigger rephrases which may be dedecided and regardless of consensus surrounding the table and how many ranked places to show, as something I wanted to implement for several years. אומנות (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The subpages that are /leftpanel and /rightpanel are too wide to fit on the main page. I've tried to fix them, but I don't know enough about the table code. If someone knows how to do it, that would be great! Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't noticed an issue with them. For me, they adjust to the width of the window. They do have a minimum for how narrow they can get based on their content; the left panel requires a bit more than the right panel. Grk1011 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey all! Just wanted to make the project aware of some of the Manual of Style guidelines which we may not be following fully, especially for data tables, which came up recently when pushing an article for GA. Our articles have a lot of tables, however we are probably not making the best use of accessibility guidance when constructing these. By including captions and row/column headers we can make our articles much more legible to those using screen readers or other web browsing tools. It's probably quite a task to work on all our articles to add these everywhere, but a friendly reminder that when you are creating, improving or adding to an article that adding these features to our tables can make a lot of difference to some people! There's also a quite handy tutorial available which spells out how best to lay out data tables to make our content accessible to all. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

With this in mind, I wanted to gauge consensus on some of the voting tables we feature in our "country in contest" articles. Particularly the "points awarded to" tables are a bit of a minefield when it comes to accessibility which, although visually appealing, are difficult for web browsers to pick up. I've created a mock example of how I believe we could potentially format these tables in the future (see below). I believe this new table also gives an advantage of providing a greater ability of comparing between the televoting and jury results per country (e.g. high marks in jury but low in televote from certain countries). Plus with the right use of columns we could potentially feature all the "points awarded to/by" tables in a single row, thus reducing the length of the article and the amount of scrolling necessary to get to the bottom. Just a thought, happy to chat it through. :-) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the current format does not align with WP:ACCESS and must change in some way. What you've mocked up appears to work. Would you be willing to test a full At Eurovision section in this format? Maybe on a sandbox page? Grk1011 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created two test sandboxes with two different At Eurovision pages, one before 2016 and one after, and both taken from current GA-status articles. Sandbox 1 shows how I envision the layout should be created for articles with one set of points (i.e. before 2016; taken from Netherlands 2014), and Sandbox 2 for articles with two sets of points (taken from Malta 2016). In Sandbox 2 I have split the detailed voting tables, so there are two separate tables for jury and televoting, as given the results of each are presented separately and do not inform the other post 2016 it doesn't make a lot of sense to combine them in one table anymore beyond aesthetics. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for putting these together! I definitely like the 'points awarded to' and 'points awarded by' tables. Torn on the detailed voting. Splitting them into separate tables makes them much larger. Not sure how I feel about that. Grk1011 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and I do somewhat understand what you mean with the detailed tables. I've mocked up a new version where the table is still combined but removing merged cells at the top. I'm not sure what the accessibility guidance is on merged cells in a header; it's very clear not to add header rows in the middle of a table, but perhaps the current layout would still be ok, I dunno. I've added col and row scopes on all tables, but perhaps we don't require the row scopes given the col scopes are all present. In addition, adding row scopes to the "points awarded by" tables means we can't add colour coding (i.e. gold, silver, bronze to top 3 points), but speaking personally I think keeping the row scopes actually makes it look better and that colour coding is perhaps unnecessary. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Any further comments from anyone? If not I will go ahead and start implementing my proposed layout across the "country in contest by year" articles as they currently appear in Sandbox 1 and Sandbox 2. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of duplicate content here in the WikiProject regarding information about entries in tables. For example, Netherlands 2019, there are two rows on the main ESC 2019 page, one in semi-final 2, one in the grand final. There is also a row on Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest, and one in List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest. The inner coder in me is screaming, since this can be problematic in several ways;

1. Maintenance - if there's one small mistake, or an article gets moved for some reason you have to update all the links in all these various places;
2. Vandalism - you have to monitor a lot of pages, and have to pay close attention for even the subtlest vandalism like changing the amount of points by one;

Ideally we would have one place where all the data about an entry is stored so we can transclude it onto every page.

I have made a module exactly for this purpose, currently located at Module:Sandbox/TheThomanski/Esc with all the data stored in a /data subpage. A demonstration of how to use can be seen at User:TheThomanski/sandbox/Esc.

It is not done, but the foundations are there. You can currently retrieve single entries, but also a list of all the entries in one year like we currently have on the main contest pages. I'm planning to make a function to generate all entries for one country for the <country> in the Eurovision Song Contest pages, and also one to generate all entries as formatted in the List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest article.

The module only contains data for the 1957 contest at the moment, and if this project follows through I'd love help from people with filling it. If anyone has suggestions for a permanent template name I would also appreciate it.

Thoughts and opinions? — TheThomanski | t | c | 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow this looks really good! When you put it like that, yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense to have these details duplicated so many times that you have to monitor a lot of pages constantly. I'll admit I don't have the greatest deal of knowledge when it comes to modules, but I can follow along how it should work based on your sandboxes.

Are we able to call different details based on what type of article it's for? e.g. the country articles won't include stuff like running order, and the list of entries also includes details like total song count and count per country that aren't included anywhere else. In my mind this seems like it should be easy to do, if there's a different tag that we can invoke to pull different data, but again I don't know everything.

Another thought that popped up was how do we incorporate language links, and when already linked previously to then not link to the same article? I can see in your example that Dutch, German and French are linked several times, which we would need to rectify per MOS:REPEATLINK. That said, I am definitely happy to contribute to adding entries to the module data list when we're ready to go! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will add a separate function for each different type of article which can be called currently with the |f= parameter (should probably change it to something more descriptive). I might even make it so that it can also be specified which columns you want in the parameters itself. This indeed shouldn't be hard to do since the main function already takes a list of columns that the person wants.

As for the languages, I'm currently thinking of a good solution as I'll have to keep track of every language that has already been linked. Some songs have multiple languages, others have those notes with even more languages, I can see it becoming messy quickly.

Other than that it should all be pretty doable. — TheThomanski | t | c | 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest#Splitting proposal, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Eurovision Song Contest by country has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Grk1011 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)