Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests/Archive 3

Is there a reason why for example the Estonian SSR is shown separately from the Soviet Union in broadcasting schedules where ETV broadcast an edition, but the same is not true for Yugoslav republics? — IмSтevan ^talk 11:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry this is a late reply but I do think the Estonian SSR broadcast should be listed under the Soviet Union. It's not like they were different countries in 1990.

Edit: I've looked a bit more and also noticed that broadcasts for Netherlands Antilles, Belgian Congo, Greenland, Faroe Islands etc. are listed in the tables for broadcasts by other competing countries. I don't think these are historically considered "countries" at the time of the contest which they broadcast, but they do have a degree of autonomy which might warrant their broadcasts to be put in a separate table to the competing countries. If they weren't to be relisted under their respective "country" (e.g. Netherlands for Netherlands Antilles, Denmark for Faroe Islands etc.) then should the title of the other broadcasts table be changed from "Broadcasters and commentators in non-participating countries" to something that acknowledges that there are autonomous territories/areas/"countries" in that table as well? Spleennn (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The main reason why I had listed Estonia separately from the other nations of the Soviet Union was because Eesti Televisioon was only broadcast within the Estonian SSR, as opposed to Soviet Central Television which was broadcast throughout the Soviet Union. It's highly possible that ETV took the exact same feed as CT USSR, but it felt a bit disingenuous to list ETV under the Soviet Union when it was only available in what is now Estonia. This is different from the situation in Yugoslavia, as there was no central channel that covered all republics. I appreciate that the wording of the table caption could be tweaked; this was something I believe was proposed a while back but possibly reverted since?

I also believe a bit of discussion is needed around how these tables are laid out generally. There's a part of me that would like to see radio broadcasts being listed in a separate table to television broadcasts, given that radio broadcasts have always been optional, but also mindful that we don't want too many tables within this section just for the sake of it. I also have a question around what constitutes a "participating country". One key example I have is where to place any broadcasts within France's various overseas departments and territories; yes from a legal perspective there are parts of France in the Caribbean or the Indian Ocean that are considered the same as metropolitan France, but it feels weird to me that we list separate broadcasts on distinct channels in e.g. Martinique or Guadeloupe, even if these channels are part of France Télévisions, within the "participating countries" table when these areas as so far removed geographically from the rest of France. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has made me come to the realisation that maybe the broadcast tables should be split by participating broadcasters and non-participating broadcasters (even if the country that broadcaster is from is participating). This would make a split between "mandatory" and "optional" broadcasts – which is something you mentioned – since all participating broadcasters are supposed to broadcast the event on at least one of their channels. Spleennn (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Sims2aholic8, there is nothing weird or unusual for a country to have part of its territory far away from its mainland, and considering it to have the same status as the mainland. Yes, the case of France is extreme due to the numerous territories and the vast distances, but I can tell you that for them they are part of France just as much as for the Spanish the Canary Islands are Spain, for the Portuguese the Azores are Portugal, and for Americans Hawaii is the United States, and for them it is something normal. So if the French overseas DROMs and COMs are considered part of the country, and the television stations broadcasting there are owned by France Télévisions, the most normal thing is to list them under France as the participating country and under France Télévisions as the participating broadcaster, even if it seems strange to a foreigner for the distances.

As for ETV in the Estonian SSR, I also think it should be listed under the Soviet Union. Especially since, according to the CT USSR Wikipedia article itself, ETV at that time was only a regional station of the broadcaster. Yes, I know the article's claim isn't fully referenced, but the evidence is there, and there should be someone out there who could confirm this. And the fact that ETV only broadcast in a small part of the Soviet Union can be addressed with a note.

And maybe broadcast tables should be divided between participating and non-participating broadcasters, it's something to consider and weigh the implications. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are some pros I can think of straight away to splitting by participating/non-participating broadcaster:

• Separating the tables by participating and non-participating broadcasters will reduce a lot of the arbitrariness that comes with categorising by countries. The definition of country comes into scrutiny when dealing with cases like Greenland, Faroe Islands, Martinique etc. but splitting by participant status will avoid any debate surrounding this. Instead categorising them based on whether the broadcast is done by a participating broadcaster (as would be the case for Martinique) or a non-participating broadcaster (as would be the case for Greenland and Faroe Islands).
• Additionally and like I've already mentioned, broadcasts are mandatory for participating broadcasters and optional for non-participating broadcasters and showing this split could be beneficial to readers.

And here are some cons or issues about this change that need to be discussed:

• Belgium swaps broadcasters every year and so the non-participating broadcaster in any given year would be in a separate table to the participating one. Separating RTBF and VRT in this regard seems weird to me even though I can't really put it to words why. I could just be stuck in the mindset of viewing broadcasts as per-country rather than per-broadcaster and a mindset shift would cause this to make more sense.
• Having a "Country" column in the participating broadcaster table is easy as the broadcaster is already tied to a country in ESC. However, this isn't true for non-participating broadcasters and so if there is a "Country" column in those tables then they would have to be designated somewhat arbitrarily. For example, should the broadcast by SvF in 1990 be counted under Faroe Islands or Denmark? Legally, the Faroe Islands is a part of Denmark, but can SvF really be called a Danish broadcaster?

Spleennn (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing weird or unusual about countries having territories in other parts of the world; I am very well aware of geopolitics in this regard. What I was trying to get at is, yes La Première is now part of the wider France Télévisions (only from 2004 it should be added however), and while of course France has had artists from its various DOM-TOMs compete at Eurovision or in its national selections, in my head "French participation" does not extend past metropolitan France. Maybe that's just my own personal head canon, and it may not stack up in reality, but that's my current view. I know legally there's a big difference between Martinique, considered an integral part of France and part of the European Union, and other overseas territories of other countries like the Falkland Islands, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Aruba etc., but personally when it comes to broadcasting I think they should be treated similarly.

Changing from a country lens to a broadcaster lens could solve some of these questions; however, as I mentioned above, you would have a situation where French overseas departments are listed under non-participants before 2005 (because Réseau France Outre-mer was a separate entity and only joined France Télévisions in 2004) and then from 2005 would be listed in the participants. Like the Belgian example above, you would also have to split out radio broadcasters which are not part of the same organisation as the television broadcaster (e.g. Sveriges Radio is a completely separate entity to Sveriges Television). Also how would you approach Germany's broadcast situation, where one of Germany's public broadcasters competes on behalf of ARD but other broadcasters may air the show on TV or radio (e.g. in 2024 Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg provided radio coverage of the final but didn't participate as this was done by Norddeutscher Rundfunk). I've included two examples below, one for 1984 and one for 2024, to give a good overview of how changing from a country lens to a broadcaster lens would work. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

In all honesty, the examples you have provided are clearer than the ones already on their respective Wikipedia page. Addressing some of the points you have mentioned:

• The French overseas territories being listed as non-participants makes sense to me as the broadcasters they were represented by weren't participating. They were eventually incorporated into France Télévisions and that is even reflected in how France selected their entries, as RFO took part in France's national finals in 2006 and 2007. I think what is odd about this is that the non-participant table still has a "Country/territory" column, showing Martinique as having broadcast the contest separately despite being politically a part of France. I don't think the "Country/territory" column should be removed however, as it increases readibility of the article; since without it the table would almost entirely be acronyms.
• For radio organisations, the non-participating broadcaster of Belgium, and the non-participating broadcasters in Germany, if they weren't competing then they did not have to broadcast the contest. I believe making this distinction within the article is important since any broadcast by these organisations in years they didn't participate are "extra" or "optional". For that reason, splitting them into a separate table is not too farfetched to me. The new tables also reflect how the Eurovision Song Contest works; being broadcaster-centric rather than country-centric.

Spleennn (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I can understand better your point around the French overseas territories from that point of view, so if the tables are reorganised I think that is a reasonable solution.

Given ESC is a television event, and has always been such even going back to 1956, all radio broadcasts are therefore optional, even from those organisations that have a single broadcaster responsible for both radio and television. If the tables are to be reorganised into participating and non-participating broadcasters, it then seems a bit of an anomaly to list radio broadcasts in the same table as television broadcasts. I can see two ways to address this: one would be to split all radio broadcasts out from the "participating broadcasters" table into the "non-participating broadcasters" table, which would then become a table with TV broadcasts by non-participating broadcasters and radio broadcasts by all broadcasters; the other would be to separate all radio broadcasts, regardless of country of origin, into their own table, essentially then creating three tables, two for TV broadcasts by participating and non-participating broadcasters and one for all radio broadcasts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe radio broadcasts should be split into a separate table. You're under the impression that TV broadcasts are mandatory when in actuality it is just any broadcast. Take for example Monaco in 1959 which only broadcast the contest on radio. By your logic, Monaco should be removed from the participant table, which doesn't seem right. If a competing broadcaster broadcast the contest on radio, I see no reason why it shouldn't be listed with the television broadcast of that same broadcaster. Spleennn (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

What is presented in the tables at present is the broadcasts that we know; it is very likely that Monaco did in fact broadcast the contest on television, but we do not have any sources to back this up. There are many gaps for contests older than 15-20 years where we have gaps in television broadcast plans for those years, but there was always an understanding that if you're participating you have to broadcast it on television. There has never been a radio-only broadcaster which has taken part, all participating broadcasters have had television operations. Also, in this particular case, the Monegasque radio broadcast would be listed in the non-participants table anyway, as Télé Monte-Carlo and Radio Monte-Carlo were two separate organisations, and it was TMC that participated in the contest on behalf of Monaco. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added additional examples below to cover the latter of the two scenarios I presented above. Splitting radio broadcasts into a separate table under the lens of focussing these tables on participating and non-participating broadcasters I believe alleviates some inconsistencies about radio broadcasts, as some countries have a much bigger tradition of broadcasting the contest on radio compared to others. In the latter case broadcasters in these countries have never or very rarely broadcast the contest on radio, because public radio networks were not combined with television, the radio networks are/were not EBU members, or just because that tradition has never existed or was rarely employed.

Splitting out radio broadcasts, which for all intents and purposes was and still is optional for broadcasters, is a much more sensible option than lumping any broadcasts from radio-only broadcasters (e.g. Sveriges Radio, Polskie Radio, Ukrainian Radio before 2017 when it merged to form Suspilne) with the non-participating broadcasters while also hosting radio broadcast in the participating broadcasters table, particularly when you consider any involvement of the radio stations on the national selection process by the television branch is inconsistent across countries, e.g. Sveriges Radio regularly broadcasts and has involvement with Melodifestivalen before, but in other countries apart from broadcasting Eurovision they may have zero involvement in the actual participation of that country. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Why not just have one table showing all broadcasts? Why even split participating/non-participating — IмSтevan ^talk 21:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Because for most years I believe there is way too much information to contain within a single table. I even think the main participating countries broadcast table in most recent years is already too big and could do with splitting, which is acceptable per MOS:TABLESPLIT: For very long tables, manageability and maintenance of the page may be better served by breaking information up into several smaller tables instead of one extremely long one. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The proposed scenario of two tables for TV and one table for radio is strange. I mean, I understand your points on them, but looking at the tables is confusing to have two tables for TV and only for radio. If I felt confused while understanding the situation, the average reader's mind will implode.

Certainly, the ESC is a television event between television services, and this is reaffirmed by the rules every year when they state that "the television services of the EBU member broadcasters blablabla participate in the ESC", but I assume that they participate representing the whole company; and that company, as a member broadcaster of the EBU, owns the broadcasting rights and can broadcast it on any of its channels and stations (being mandatory to broadcast it on at least one television channel). So, when I look at the table of participating broadcasters, I expect to find all the broadcasts from the same broadcaster together, regardless of the broadcasting medium. I mean, I expect to find all the BBC broadcasts together, whether it's TV, radio, online, or smoke signals. This is true as television and radio companies are increasingly merging, their services are becoming more integrated, and the separation between media is becoming increasingly blurred. And it is even more true when radio broadcasting is often simply broadcasting on the radio the audio from the television broadcast (including television commentary). Yes, radio broadcasting is optional, but it is also optional for broadcasters to air the contest on their secondary television channels and international feeds, and these would be anyway in the "TV participating broadcasters" table.

In the case of Germany, the participating broadcaster is ARD, it simply delegates the actual organisation of the participation to one of its members, who participate on behalf of the whole consortium, and the event is broadcast on the main channel of ARD nationwide. So, I also expect to find all the broadcasts of all the members of the consortium together. The same goes for the Netherlands and its complex broadcasting system.

In the case of Belgium, I also have that je ne sais quoi feeling. The alternation between broadcasters is a tacit understanding between them, and since one participates representing Belgium and the other is always there, from the outside it seems that it represents both. I don't know the internal story between them, and how this is seen within Belgium, but from abroad this is how it seems.

(Just a note about Sweden, SR was initially responsible for radio and television services, it wasn't until 1980 that the television service was separated into a different company (SVT).)

And I also have the same feeling for companies that were legally different but that once depended on the same entity, one was a spin-off of the other, shared the legal framework and often even the same facilities and staff, and that eventually ended up merging. I'm referring for example to RTP and RDP, TVE and RNE, or even SR and SVT. I find it strange to see them on different tables, but in this case it is more difficult to justify not separating them.

What I do find totally strange, even amateurish, is to find a region of a country in the column of countries and territories. A region in a country is not a territory in the sense that it has in this context. I mean, I find out of place to find Martinique listed as much as if it were Baden-Württemberg or Tuscany. I think it should be listed as France, and if the broadcast coverage area is wanted, a note can be added.

In short, this is just my point of view, and I still don't know if we've gained enough from the change to make it worthwhile, as it still has its drawbacks. But if I have to choose, I prefer the first proposed scenario (of two tables) to the second (of three). Ferclopedio (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I can understand some of your points above, however I have to set the record straight on a few of them:

• On ARD, yes there are a couple of television channels which are run by ARD itself, which have input from the various regional broadcasters; however these broadcasters also have their own television channels, and most importantly all radio stations are run exclusively by these regional broadcasters. As I see it, yes there's going to be a degree of interaction between them, but it's very much the same as interaction between EBU members only on a German national level rather than international. So any radio broadcasts not conducted by the broadcaster responsible for the German participation are in my mind "optional". Additionally, all regional broadcasters are themselves members of the EBU individually (see here), so while yes ARD is the parent organisation and has overall responsibility for competing in Eurovision on behalf of Germany (since only one entry is allowed per country), so it's a lot more complicated than simply all ARD member broadcasts are considered the "participating broadcaster".
• As for the "amateurish" suggestion of splitting regions, it's not always as simple to classify these, because every country is set up differently. Taking a couple of examples, specifically overseas France, the kingdom of the Netherlands, and British overseas territories, each country takes different approaches to the various bits of land they own/control. Some parts of France, the overseas departments and regions, are considered analogous to departments in metropolitan France, whereas other islands have various different relationships with France, collectivities or territories, which are not as close to a department or territory. With the kingdom of the Netherlands, taking Aruba as an example, this is considered on par with the Netherlands, whereas Bonaire is considered a municipality within the Netherlands. Conversely, there are no overseas territories belonging to the UK, as well as the Crown Dependencies, which form part of the UK itself. With all this in mind, the main thing I was trying to get at with this proposal was to try and bring some consistency to this, and basically list any broadcasts outside of the "parent country" for want of a better word as a non-participating country. I know it's not a perfect solution, nor is it expressely accurate from a legal perspective, but it seemed the best compromise rather than having to explain the legal make-up of each of these countries in depth.

It appears I'm on to a losing case with this proposal anyway. The other proposal I would suggest is reformulating the tables to list all broadcasts in two separate tables, one for television and one for radio, regardless of their point of origin or whether said country was actually competing in the event (since this info is already present in the participating countries table anyway). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I didn't explain myself well with the "amateurish" thing, sorry for that. With "find a region of a country in the column of countries and territories", I mean regions that are undisputed integral parts of the country. I am aware of the different approaches of each country on its overseas lands, and those that are difficult to classify fall under "territories". And it is not our job to discern whether a land is a region or a territory; that is well defined in its corresponding, well-referenced articles. What I don't want to see listed in the countries/territories column of the non-participants table are, f.ex., all the Spanish provinces, simply because the corresponding local SER radio station aired the contest in 1969; all of them should be listed under "Spain". And this is analogously the case with Martinique, that is considered a department of France, with the same status as the mainland departments, and had to be treated like them, and listed under "France".

One good example of "separation between media is becoming increasingly blurred" is the new RNE accessibility service "RNE para todos". This service is a simulcast via DTT of the radio broadcast with subtitles onscreen and sign language interpretation, and even includes the live image from the radio studio when available. Does this fall under radio or television broadcasts?

What you say about ARD confirms how difficult it is to find the perfect solution for this, and to this example we must add the complex system in the Nederlands, which I don't even understand myself.

And just remember that this whole discussion started over whether ETV fell under the Soviet Union or not. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This conversation may have been hijacked a little by this I must admit, but one question did lead into the other in my mind. On the Estonia/Soviet Union point I really have no preference, it just didn't make sense to me that a station only broadcast within the Estonian SSR, and which is analogous to the present-day country of Estonia that now takes part independently, should be listed under the Soviet Union, just as I don't personally see why a channel that just broadcasts in Martinique should be listed under France, as if the whole country can access that channel. At the same time I am also comparing this to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which although part of Denmark are nominally independent in all matters, and I really can't see a situation where you bundle Kringvarp Føroya and Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa under Denmark without getting some serious pushback; in the same way that in a hypothetical situation I can't see myself agreeing to place TV3 under Spain and not Catalonia if they were ever to broadcast the contest.

It's just a very confusing situation where we have one rule for one territory and another rule for another territory, which yes when you look into it does make sense but is also not very clear from a layman's perspective if the proper context isn't provided (which isn't our job to do in these articles). Splitting the table into "participating broadcaster" and "non-participating broadcaster" doesn't always fix this situation, since France Télévisions covers overseas departments, considered an integral part of France, and collectivities and territories, which are more remote, as part of La Première; nor does splitting the tables into television and radio, since that then raises the point around whether or not to list a given broadcaster/channel under a certain country or territory. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In the end my point is that Yugoslavia's broadcasts should be divided by its republics much like Estonia is from the Soviet Union. If they were indeed all available in each other, then surely this should apply in modern times as well and we should be listing, say, HRT in Serbia, as it's near universally available, right? Also, should TV Koper-Capodistria, which broadcast quite a few contests, be listed in the table under Friuli-Venezia Giulia, as it's available there? — IмSтevan ^talk 19:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It has no sense to divide Yugoslavia as the sole participant broadcaster and EBU member was JRT, and all stations broadcasting were its affiliates. Just as we do not divide Switzerland. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We also do not list in a country broadcasts from foreign broadcasters in any case. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like you've missed the point of this part of the discussion. Splitting the tables into participants and non-participants will make deciding which country belongs to which broadcaster in the participant table extremely easy, as broadcasters compete in the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of countries. Therefore making the correlation between broadcaster and country in the participant broadcast table reflect how the Eurovision Song Contest functions.

The problem is with how to delegate which "country" belongs to which broadcaster for non-participants. I don't think the column should be removed as without it the table becomes entirely acronyms which is extremely hard for readers to understand and/or navigate. The column should therefore be kept as it allows the reader to see at a glance where in the world the contest was broadcast.

The best solution in my opinion is to list the country (or autonomous region if their status as "country" is debatable, e.g. Faroe Islands, Isle of Man, Aruba, Greenland etc.) in which that broadcaster broadcasts in. If the broadcaster only broadcasts in one region of one country (and that region isn't autonomous in the same way that the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Aruba etc. are) then it should be listed under country with a note explaining that it is only broadcast in a certain region. E.g. the ETV broadcast in 1990 being listed under Soviet Union with a footnote explaining that ETV only served the Estonian SSR, or a similar thing with Martinique and France. Spleennn (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The thing is I completely disagree. I don't want to see for example Belgium in 2 or 3 different tables — IмSтevan ^talk 23:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I am against splitting radio broadcasts into a separate table so my proposal would see Belgium split into two tables.

Belgium only occupies one table at the moment because those tables are country-centric rather than broadcaster-centric. It seems weird to me that the tables showing broadcasts are not being sorted by broadcasters, and instead being sorted by countries. This isn't how the Eurovision Song Contest works. Spleennn (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that all broadcasts, from competing and non-competing countries, should be in one table. I would accept separating TV and radio broadcasts, but then not separating competing and non-competing countries — IмSтevan ^talk 23:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

So you want all broadcasts in one table, and also taking into account what you said before, you also want countries/broadcasts to be split up by region, as far as including Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Estonian SSR, and all Yugoslav Republics separately in the table? I think your solution is extremely convoluted and not reader-friendly at all. Spleennn (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ofc not, it was an exaggeration to prove a point — IмSтevan ^talk 23:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I've retracted my statement around TV3/Catalonia, cause clearly I was wrong on that point.

The reason the broadcast tables are sorted by country is purely for ease of access by the reader. Countries are a much more identifiable way of sorting this, rather than by the broadcasters themselves, and if the country aspect were to be removed we would end up with a mass of acronyms in the first column, which is not helpful for any reader, even Eurovision savvy ones that know what most of the broadcasters are.

I'm content if the decision is to remove the distinction between participating and non-participating countries from these tables; however I just don't think given how massive the tables already are in the most recent years that it's beneficial to place them all in one table, it makes it incredibly difficult to parse and actually understand the content of the table when there are so many columns and rows, especially on smaller screens and mobile devices. However I can understand the point around separation between media becoming blurred, so while radio/television splits would work up to a certain point, it then could get murky about what counts as a radio broadcast etc.

As for the discussion on the "is this a territory that should get its own line", on reflection I don't think there's any "one size fits all" approach, and it's probably best to just address the situation as it arises in future, and work through these on a case-by-case basis. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I don't support splitting the tables in any of the suggested ways at all — IмSтevan ^talk 19:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't have one rule for one territory and another rule for the others. We have a region that belongs to a country that is considered a indivisible part of that country and that is treated as the rest of the regions of that country, and we list it under the country itself, and we have "other territories" that are usually treated separately. And you are trying to equate that region with those other territories instead of with the other regions of its own country. Martinique is a region of France, as the Canary Islands and Catalonia are regions of Spain, and the Azores of Portugal. And French overseas collectivities are still considered an integral part of France. The case of Greenland and the Faroe Islands are totally different.

And of course, any hypothetical broadcasts of TV3 should be listed under Spain, together with any other hypothetical broadcast of any other Spanish regional broadcaster, as we already do with the regional broadcast of Ràdio 4; and with any other broadcast of any regional broadcaster in any other country. There is no point in further populating the tables with regional flags.

And the same applies to Estonian SSR that should be under the Soviet Union and ETV under CT USSR (if is the case), as we do with Yugoslavia and Switzerland. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree here. If any specificity is required for what region of a country a broadcaster is broadcasting in then it can be put in a note (e.g. only in Martinique, only in Catalonia, only in Estonian SSR). However, these notes might not even be needed as the wikipedia page for those channels/broadcasters will explain where they broadcast to. Spleennn (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't support merging all broadcasts into a single table. In addition to the aforementioned reason regarding the table being oversized and the consequences of this, I don't think that having the participants listed with the no-participants without any criteria (countries, other territories, and broadcasters all together mixed) improves the table's readability, makes it easier to understand, or reflects reality better. In fact, I believe it worsens all that due to the completely different levels of involvement of participants compared to non-participants. Starting with that, the participating broadcasters co-produce the event itself, both financially, legally, technically, and organizationally; something that non-participating broadcasters do not. I've already said in previous discussions that, according to the rules they are co-producers of the event (legally), they pay for their participation (financially), they provide fundamental parts of the show itself -the voting segment f.ex.- (technically), and they elect the reference group that represents them all and makes the decisions (organizationally). Regarding broadcasting rights, which is what matters to us in this table, they are also obtained in a completely different way since broadcasters have different access rights to them. Participating broadcasters have the broadcasting rights (for all its media) guaranteed in their countries and broadcasting the event is mandatory for them (at least on national television), while other EBU members (in those and other countries) have also access to the broadcasting rights (for a fee, of course) and broadcasting the event is optional for them (except when they were forced to broadcast it if they wanted to participate the following year). Other broadcasters can only obtain broadcasting rights if they are available in their country/territory because there is no EBU member using them. Furthermore, the extent of the coverage of the event varies greatly between participating and non-participating broadcasters, being for non-participants an event external to them.

Regarding whether we should stay as we are or reformulate the tables, I am not against the transition to the two tables "Broadcasts by participating broadcasters"/"Broadcasts by other broadcasters" scenario; I just have the concerns I mentioned earlier. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take a poll on what changes people would like to see? And maybe in a new section as this discussion has been derailed from the initial topic on the 1990 ETV broadast. Spleennn (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it time to rethink if the infobox for 2025 and onwards should even display the supervisor? It's been relegated to a backend role and I don't really think it warrants that prominent of a mention anymore — IмSтevan ^talk 14:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that the executive supervisor has been relegated to a backend role? Is it only because Osterdahl didn't give his customary speech in Basel? Because I believe that's less about a change in the role and more a case of not wanting to put him in the arena for him to get booed at again. I believe the exec supervisor role, at least up to 2025, is still a core function of the production and organisation of the contest, and until there is a fundamental shift in that in future contests I think we should continue with the status quo of listing this role in the infobox. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Supervisor has already lost some of their responsibilities, which are now in the hands of ESC director and Brand manager. The supervisor is still the person that has the final say in some of the changes to the contest, but then I would ask why we wouldn't be listing the head of the reference group as well. I think ESC director, as the supervisor's "boss" is enough for the infobox and that the supervisor is not needed anymore — IмSтevan ^talk 21:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've not seen anything specific that details the split (if there is one) between responsibilities of the ESC director, brand manager and exec supervisor, so I would push back a little on this narrative for now. At the end of the day, the exec supervisor is still the only one that appears on camera, so in that regard it should be listed within the infobox even if the ESC director has taken over some of the more senior executive decisions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

An alternative way of thinking about this; If we didn't have the executive supervisor in the infobox right now, what argument would there be to add them? — IмSтevan ^talk 02:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The person within this role is literally shown on camera as the person in charge of overseeing the voting, and this person is also a person of interest not only within the Eurovision bubble but also externally (e.g. ). In fact this role is probably the most visible than any other behind-the-scenes role, e.g. executive producers, multi-camera directors, even the ESC director. I doubt you would be pushing to remove these roles from the infobox, even though they are inheritently "backend roles", so I don't really understand why you're pushing to remove the exec supervisor role. It feels like just because in Basel Österdahl didn't get to speak on camera that's your sole reason for pushing for this, when that can be easily explained as a quirk of 2025 (and also this was very common in the 1960s and 1970s anyway). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't have him in the 2026 infobox right now because we know for sure that Österdahl won't be in that role by then, and we don't yet know the name of the person who will take over. When we know, the name will be added unless the position is officially eliminated or its duties drastically reduced. Simply having the role of overseeing the voting procedure it would be necessary to add him/her, to be consistent with the previous years, since we usually add the person performing that role when we know (with the corresponding role name). Ferclopedio (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of changes to links in our articles recently, and I'm not opposed to the majority of these changes, however I also want to raise a dialogue about where is it appropriate to link to the country by year article instead of directly to the country itself. Obviously a lot of country by year articles are redirects to the country articles anyway, but I guess it's difficult to wrap my head around when and where we should be linking to the yearly articles instead of the main articles. One recent example is at History of the Eurovision Song Contest, where the links in the "Winning country" column in the table were changed to the yearly articles instead of the main article on each country; tbh I just don't know if this is appropriate linking or not, hence my desire for a dialogue, and maybe from that we can come up with a unified approach for all our articles that is clear and concise for all. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who just changed those links in the History article. I changed them because I thought we provide better information by linking to the specific country in year, since that way we can see which song and which artist won simply by hovering over the link, and go to the corresponding article if we want more information about that winner. I think we should link the country when talking about the country in general and link the county in year when talking about a specific entry from that country, since we have those articles. Many are redirects to the country, but there are many more existing (or redirecting to the song), and the goal is that they will all exist in the future. Ferclopedio (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

But then surely in the 2025 participation table for example we should be linking to the by year articles instead of the country articles, no? — IмSтevan ^talk 15:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

What I think is a little bit bizarre is the difference in link targets on the ESC by year articles. For example, in the Eurovision 2018 article, in the section "Participants", with the table containing country, artist, songs etc., when you click on "Belgium", you will land on the "Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest" article. In the section "Contest overview", in the results table for SF1, you have similar columns (country, artist, song...) but when you click on "Belgium" there, you will be directed to "Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018".

How can an average reader guess which of the two articles is hidden behind which link? I think that's confusing.

When I look around how other Wikiprojects handle this, the 2024 Summer Olympics article consistently links to the country by year articles, for example. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The cases are different. The winners table in the History article lists the winning countries when talking about a specific entry from that country, and it doesn't give any further information about the entries. So, linking to the country in year has sense as it gives more information and context as we link it to the specific entry. Linking to the country articles doesn't give that further information and furthermore, I don't get the point of linking in the same table seven times to the same article for Ireland and Sweden, five to Luxembourg, etc., that is overlinking.

In the case of the participants table in the contest articles we have all the information of the entry in the same table, and we are talking about the country itself as a participant, so it has sense to link to the country article. We have all the links to the country in year articles in the Participation summaries by country infobox in that same section. In that infobox we have also the countries that withdrew, that doesn't appear in the table. So, without that infobox we miss those links to those articles. And in the results tables we are talking directly about the results of that entry, so it has sense to link to the county in year. I don't know the background of how this ended up being presented like this, I think it was agreed in a previous discussion, but it makes some sense. If anyone can find a better, more coherent way to display all this information and is willing to change all the ninety-something articles at once, we can discuss it. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

My take is that all links in a given year should lead to by year articles, and that's easily fixed with a bot — IмSтevan ^talk 14:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that is feasible, and there are lots of occasion where linking to the country and not the individual year is more appropriate; hypothetically, if a sentence in a future article read "Sweden has previously won the contest seven times", would you suggest "Sweden" be linked to a yearly article when it's clearly relating to the country's participation as a whole? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I meant all links in tables that are specific to a given year, should've clarified that — IмSтevan ^talk 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey y'all, just wanted to bring this article to your attention. I put it up for an AfD because the subject simply isn't notable to outside media as far as I can tell alongside being a relatively niche subject. Let me know what y'all think here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESC Gabe. Thanks! Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 18:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Auftakt für Brighton has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29 § Auftakt für Brighton until a consensus is reached. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple Eurovision related discussions ongoing on Commons:

• Files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG Heart-flags of Eurovision (Finland)
• Files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG Heart-flags of Eurovision (National flag of Spain)
• Files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG Heart-flags of Eurovision (Georgia)
• Files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Eurovision Song Contest logos
• Files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG Heart-flags of Eurovision (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
• Gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/Flag heart symbols of Eurovision (Other countries)

— IмSтevan ^talk 12:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Since Eurovision is a television event, obviously with a long broadcasting history, would anybody be opposed to the creation of a new article dedicated solely to the broadcasts and viewing figures? — IмSтevan ^talk 09:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would not! Toffeenix (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would have some strong reservations about creating what would essentially be a list article on this topic. My views about collating viewing figures across countries and contests, which were raised in previous discussions, have not changed; I don't think it's a good idea to try and compare viewing figures in different countries for an individual contest, as television markets are so diverse across Europe and the world, nor do I think it's particularly fair to compare an entire country's viewing figure history, as again television viewership has changed a lot from the 60s or 70s to the present day. I also don't see the point of creating what would essentially be a database of viewing history of all countries over all contests; yes it might be interesting to look, but I believe it goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS. This is in contrast to presenting this information in a context-appropriate way as we currently do, showing the broadcasts of a given contest, or country over time, on those respective articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So its unfair to present viewership info in articles by contest, in articles by country or in its own article? Where is it appropriate then

I'd propose dividing the article into subheaders on participating countries, and then present viewing figures there, by country — IмSтevan ^talk 13:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion it is appropriate to mention specific viewing figures in the country by year articles, where it can be discussed in its appropriate context. A good example of this can be seen at Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 § At Eurovision. When you strip away the context, which is what you would be doing by sticking a bunch of figures into a table, even if you do split it by country, I don't believe you would be portraying an accurate picture for any reader, which is exactly what WP:NOTSTATS is about.

If you take Germany as an example, viewing figure information is undoubtedly going to be higher in the 60s and 70s, because there was basically only two channels that someone could watch at any given time. If you show all figures in one table, someone who doesn't realise that might look at this downward trend and think that the contest is getting "less popular", when in fact it's because the television market is vastly different now than 50-60 years ago. Of course then you get percentage share figures etc. but can you guarantee that every country is going to have those figures publicly available?

What I am also concerned about is the large amount of gaps that we are invariably going to run into with this proposal. If you have an article with 52 sections for each country, a large number of them I believe will have zero information. Also, if you planned to divide the article into subheaders by country, why not suggest adding the information to the country articles first? Surely that would be a more appropriate place to add this information in the first instance, and at least there more context could be given in prose about the television market in that country.

I'm not saying viewing information isn't relevant, I just find this proposal lacking in forethought and I just don't believe a stand-alone article on this subject is relevant or even notable enough to warrant its creation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Sims2aholic8 on everything he said about this. We would end up with an endless article full of tables that are not comparable, that would be full of gaps due to a lack of information, that would be difficult to maintain, that breaks several Wikipedia guidelines, and that only covers the tip of the iceberg. Because talking only about where it was broadcast and the audience it achieved, when we want to talk about "broadcasting", is only the tip of the iceberg of the subject.

If, instead, you were trying to create an article that really addressed the topic of "Broadcasting of the Eurovision Song Contest" in an encyclopedic manner, i.e., describing in depth the complex systems, technologies, and personnel behind broadcasting such a huge event, recounting the technological advances the event has incorporated (and when) over such a long run, and explaining the specific peculiarities it has, such as how the live broadcast is distributed to broadcasters through Eurovision, how the sound of the on-site commentators is included, how they customize the broadcast and how they all synchronize, how they produce their live voting segment for the international broadcast, what backup systems they have in case of a broadcast failure, etc. etc. etc... you would have my full support. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Taking EYM 2024 as an inspiration, should the broadcasts tables indicate whether the contest was aired live or on delay? For example the 2008 contest was aired in New Zealand in 2009, and that's only indicated in the note. If I recall correctly, Yle aired the 2006 and 2007 contests again in 2020, shouldn't this also be included in there using this logic? Since we already discussed how to split the tables up, could separating live and delayed broadcasts be a way of going about it? — IмSтevan ^talk 11:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've always approached the ESC broadcast tables from the POV of indicating the first time that a given contest was aired in that country, whether that was live or deferred. That's why I would oppose expanding these tables to indicate every single occasion when a contest was broadcast in a country, also because I just don't think it's relevant information. Repeats are a very common thing, it's a way for broadcasters to fill a schedule on the cheap, and yes there may be special occasions, e.g. an important milestone of a contest, which might mean a repeat of a contest is notable (e.g. the BBC aired the 1974 contest on the 50th anniversary in 2024) but again I don't think this is necessary information, and in fact is bordering on WP:UNDUE. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

But New Zealand running the contest a year later...is? — IмSтevan ^talk 13:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That's the first instance of that edition of the contest airing in NZ; there were no previous airings of that contest (that we know of). Would you rather we didn't include it just because it happened a year after the contest was held? Are you suggesting that every single time a contest was aired it should be listed somewhere? Cause that list could run into the hundreds very quickly, and I just don't understand what purpose it serves.

The main difference with ESC and EYM is that ESC has live voting, either by juries sitting in the participating countries or through public voting; as such there is an intrinsic requirement for the countries participating to air the contest live. As far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong, but EYM has never had this requirement, and therefore splitting the table in this way is potentially more applicable for this event. Overall when it comes to ESC I think these tables are already so big, and we don't need to be adding another column just for the tiny minority of cases where a non-participating broadcaster aired a contest delayed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Sims2aholic8 on this.

Live broadcasting of the ESC is mandatory for participating broadcasters and they may be penalized for not doing so.

We're already struggling to keep track of all the first broadcasts of the event, let alone listing all the re-runs. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

This may have been brought up before but I really do not like the usage of the term "national final" as opposed to "national selection". I recently changed all the occurances of this in the ESC 2026 article.

I understand that "NF" is by far the most common terminology in the Eurovision fandom, however to outsiders it implies that the selection has only a single grand final show, if it's even clear that we're talking about a selection in the first place. People may not even realise at first that a "national final" is used to select an act for the contest.

This may be nitpicking but I would prefer if we stopped using this term on here and start regularly using "national selection" instead. — TheThomanski | t | c | ^{please ping me when replying!} 22:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I personally have no preference for either term, but I'm happy to contribute to any discussion about standardising language on this. WP:COMMONNAME would apply, however I'm not sure what term if any is more common, either within or without the Eurovision bubble. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe that in this, in addition to the common name, we have to apply common sense. I also find it strange that a selection process that includes the public call for songwriters and artists, which can have several stages with heats and semi-finals, televised or not, and that can last for months, is simply called the "national final". Common sense dictates that the "national final" is the single grand final show where the entry is finally chosen. And the Eurovision fandom isn't lying when it says an entry was selected in a "national final", because the entry was ultimately selected in the "national final". But I think that in this case, using the "national final," out of a simplification of language or due to a lack of knowledge of the entire process behind it, to refer to the entire selection process is an understatement.

That's why it also seems perfectly logical to me that we refer to the "national selection" when talking about the entire process and leave the word "final" only for the final, thus also avoiding ambiguity. Also we would have the term "national selection" as opposed to "internal selection". Ferclopedio (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree; I just think that "national final" is unnessecarily confusing and straight up wrong terminology that got normalised. I don't think that it would be such a big deal to the point that we have to invoke COMMONNAME as both terms are very similar anyway. It's mostly a personal annoyance I've had for a while. — TheThomanski | t | c | ^{please ping me when replying!} 15:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

What are our options with this? It's getting ridiculous how much traffic this is getting, the second there is literally anything potential on social media, any kind of clickbait and most of it is pure trash, someone has to add in to this talk page. I don't think it's helpful or in any way conducive to improving the article, but I don't know what we can do to reduce the traffic and the amount of spam topics. Any thoughts? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As long as people keep it in the talk page, rather than trying to insert whatever into the actual article, I see no problem — IмSтevan ^talk 22:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. That talk page is becoming infuriating to read but like you I'm stuck for solutions. Could we add something to the top of the talk page clarifying that it should not be treated as a forum? Spleennn (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

There already is: Template:Talk header. We could potentially also add Template:Not a forum but I don't know if that would make any difference. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It's obviously irritating but better there than in the article itself. Don't think there's much that can be done (short of Not a forum), most of the issues are that this lot think Instagram is reliable Toffeenix (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I propose that Intervision Song Contest article gets renamed to Intervision Song Contest (1965-1980, with the 2008 revival being its own article, and then creating an article Intervision Song Contest (2025-present) for the revived contest — IмSтevan ^talk 16:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I strongly support the creation of the new article, but I strongly oppose the rename.

I think that the Intervision Song Contest article should be used only for the run under the OIRT (for the reasons I said in its talk page), and that it should keep that name as it is its official name.

The article of the current run shouldn't use that same name, as it isn't its official name, it isn't a continuation of the old one, nor do I personally think it's actually a song contest. If they've given to it the official name of "Intervision International Music Contest", that should be the name of the article. That or any other official name they come up with, because I still don't think they can use the original name for legal reasons. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I oppose the rename and I oppose the creation of a new article. The 2025 contest has just been held, and while there appears to be a 2026 contest in the works I personally believe that it's too soon to say with any certainty that this will actually go ahead, given how temperamental past history of the event. I will be proposing a page merge of Intervision 2026 into the 2025 article shortly for this very reason. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I also think it's too soon, but I see it as a way to move there the entire mess about the current run that they keep adding to the article of the old run. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

A standalone article all about the "revival" I just don't believe at this stage to be relevant or notable enough. Keeping everything on the Intervision Song Contest article I think is the right solution for now; yes they are completely different events, but they are related and I believe keeping all events with this name in the same article makes more sense than splitting them into two smaller articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The point is that they are not related, nor have the same name. The only thing they have in common is the "Intervision" part of the name, and they are taking advantage of that to make believe that they are the same. They have given the new contest the official name of "Intervision International Music Contest"- Ferclopedio (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes though, Intervision 2025 is a song contest called Intervision; that means that at a fundamental level the event is linked to the events held in the 60s, 70s and the 2008 contest. There's no reason to say that the events held in 65-68 and 77-80 are the same either, so by that logic we should also split those events up. The point I'm making is that in my mind having three or four separate articles about very similar topics does not make sense from a notability POV, and combining them into one, providing the proper context and caveats that they're not all the same organisers etc. is the best approach here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The 1965-68 and 1977-80 runs were both organised by the same entity, Intervision (network), which is now a part of the EBU. The contests in those runs also had the same name. There is no reason to separate those events. However, the 2008 revival and the 2025 revivals have no correlation to those old ones, apart from one word in their names. Since the revived contest is branded simply "Intervision", a potential common article for revival editions could be Intervision (song contest). — IмSтevan ^talk 03:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with IмSтevan on this. (just pointing out that OIRT was the entity organising, and Intervision the transmission network)

Adding all information of all eras to the old article, only makes things worse, it turns a stable article about a past event into a battlefield of recentisms, mixing unrelated eras, and giving a wrong impression (as it has become this week). I would prefer to keep the original article stable for the OIRT-organised runs and take the battlefield elsewhere. I also agree that it may be premature to consider the current event an actual series that needs its own article; we don't yet know how this will develop. So I think it's best to keep just three articles for now: the old article only with the old stuff, 2008, and 2025; and when we know the current event is becoming a run, create an article for this new run. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Song_Contests/Sources#Eurovision_Fun on blacklisting Eurovision Fun — IмSтevan ^talk 16:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm constantly confused by this, but are we counting broadcasts via broadcasters' official platforms as separate ones? For example, the contest is broadcast on RTS Planeta, but RTS Planeta is simply a platform from which you access RTS 1 or RTS Svet to watch the broadcast, so should we even be listing that? — IмSтevan ^talk 09:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Only if there is something different from the main broadcast. I mean:

- If the broadcast in the platform is simply the simulcast of the main broadcast, it is not needed to treat it as different. It is the same broadcast of the same television channel, only by a different broadcasting medium.

- If the broadcast in the platform is different from the main broadcast, because it has different commentators, has comment in a different language, has sing language interpretation, etc., yes, we treat it separately. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ferclopedio sums up my thoughts pretty well on this; if there is something demonstrably different on offer on an online platform to what is provided through terrestrial channels, e.g. different commentary options, then yes this should be included, but there's no point in including online platforms just for the sake of it if the offering is exactly the same as terrestrial. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The flag of Latvia's current standardisation started on 1 January 2019, however, we are applying the current standard to the contests prior to 2019. Prior to 2019, the only flag used was the textile version. I have changed the flag on the 2018 article. Can somebody use a bot to fix this issue in articles regarding contests between 2000 and 2017? — IмSтevan ^talk 11:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Done in the ESC and JESC contests. Can you check if I've missed any?

Doing in the ESC country in year Ferclopedio (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Done in ESC and JESC country in year. And EYD, EYM and choir contest. Ferclopedio (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! — IмSтevan ^talk 13:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

This guy has been vandalizing JESC articles non stop. Is there a way to ban him from editing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/102.119.38.253 AdamantiosK (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah somebody please restrict this IP — IмSтevan ^talk 04:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nel blu, dipinto di blu (song)#Requested move 21 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ferclopedio: Could you possibly also edit the flag of France on articles from 1975 until 2019 (and esc 2020) to be the lighter version of the flag?
 France — IмSтevan ^talk 19:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late to the game since the articles have been changed already, but for me personally this is going a little bit too far for the sake of "accuracy". The law has changed multiple times since Latvia regained its independence, and so there are various different shades which have at different times been considered the "correct" colour. I can let this one slide for now, however I strongly oppose making any changes to the French flags post-creation of the Fifth French Republic. As is stated on the Flag of France article, both the lighter and darker versions of the flag were used simultaneously and interchangeably, so there is no "correct" version; just because Macron decided to use the darker version at the Elysée from 2020 onwards doesn't make it more "official". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that there are no lenghts that we shouldn't be going to in order to use correct flags. When talking about Latvia, the shade used today on the project was formalised in 2019, meaning it didn't exist prior, so why should it be used prior? When talking about France, the file used in the infobox for Flag of France article should be the reference point, and considering that it was changed in 2020, we should be adhering to that — IмSтevan ^talk 22:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This change would not affect the readability of the articles whatsoever, simply display the version of the flag mainly used by the state of France during the correct time periods. If both versions are correct, then surely this shouldn't be an issue? We'd also be consistent with articles such as the UEFA European Championship article series — IмSтevan ^talk 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

We should use the official flag in any case.

In the case of Latvia, I agreed to make the changes because according the Flag of Latvia article, on 1 January 2019 the law that defined the non-fabric flags official color shade entered in force. Before that, since the independence, only the textile version of the flag was used. Therefore, I thought the change was appropriate, and I agreed with ImStevan. In Wikipedia (Template:Country data Latvia), we only have one representation of that textile version (pantone), and I used that.

In the case of France, the Flag of France article reads:

"Article 2 of the French constitution of 1958 states that "the national emblem is the tricolour flag, blue, white, red". No law has specified the shades of these official colours ... The blue stripe has usually been a dark navy blue; a lighter blue (and lighter red) version was introduced in 1976 by President Giscard d'Estaing ... Both versions were used from then on ... On 13 July 2020, President Macron reverted, without any statement and with no orders for other institutions to use a specific version, to the darker ... it was noted that both the darker and lighter flags have been in use for decades"

In this case I agree with Sims2aholic8. Both shades are correct and official and have been used as such. I see the use of a lighter version by president Giscard d'Estaing as a personal choice, since it was not reflected in any official order, and that didn't make it more official than the darker version. I don't know the thinking behind the decision to use the lighter version in the UEFA article in that period, and I don't see the point why we must follow them just because they use that. Therefore, in this case, I don't see a significant improvement in accuracy that justifies the effort of editing zillions of articles to use the lighter version. Sorry. Ferclopedio (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not gonna push for it further — IмSтevan ^talk 17:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@ImStevan: @Sims2aholic8: Should this be expanded? Fort esc (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft in question

I suggested making this article and perhaps moving viewing figures there, but I think the consensus was that viewing figures should be on country by year articles. So this draft just kind of stayed there. I don't know what to do with it — IмSтevan ^talk 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a certain pattern with edits by Szyign, so I have to ask, are you Szymona Ignatiuka, the founder of ESC Spot? In some instances in which English languaged sources are skipped in your edits, you go straight for the main source (broadcaster), but in others you don't do that, when you decide to cite ESC Spot instead. I picked this pattern up from Eurovision Young Musicians 2026 and Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2025 articles. Not saying that any of this is against the rules, but for the sake of transparency I felt like I had to ask, especially with us recently having a discussion on the reliability of ESC Spot. — IмSтevan ^talk 22:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I confirm – it's me.

As you noticed, the fact that I am an editor at ESCSpot and also edit Wikipedia is not really against the rules, but for the sake of transparency, I will explain anyway – long before ESCSpot was created, I used to spend time on Wikipedia adding information, so despite starting work on the portal, I decided not to give up this hobby and continue working on it, which is easy to see from the number of edits I make, most of which are not related to Eurovision articles :)

As for sources, now that I think about it, it may have happened that when I didn't have a direct source at hand, I could have used ESCSpot, but it wasn't because I wanted to promote it or anything like that, it was more because I had it at hand first, unintentionally.

Of course, if this is a problem, I will try to pay attention to it in the future and avoid it, I had no bad intentions.

When it comes to non-English sources, I prefer to use them first, because in the case of Eurovision, they are usually more reliable than English ones, but that may be a matter of my personal beliefs.

As for Eurovision Young Musicians 2026, I would say that it's a matter of other websites not covering this topic. Sometimes Eurovoix writes something, and then I try to add them as another source. But for the most part, there is a relative dryness on this topic, which is probably why I end up adding ESCSpot.

As for the discussion about the reliability of ESCSpot, I saw it some time ago, but I decided that my participation in it as a person associated with the website would be inappropriate and unreliable, so I decided not to take part in it.

Best regards! Szyign (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I just want to clarify, I wasn't implying that there are bad intentions, nor that anything you're doing is a problem. I was just asking for the sake of transparency. Heck, I'm in the same boat! We discussed my position in Evrovizija.rs a while ago regarding ROTW votes — IмSтevan ^talk 22:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, no - don't worry, I didn't take it that way, I just wanted to clarify it anyway in case anyone had any doubts! Szyign (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

We touched on this topic back in 2024, but never resolved it, and once again we have a bit of an issue; "Nova zora" has been selected, is sung by a Montenegrin artist, written by a Serbian songwriter, for a country that has a majority Serbian speaking population, but Montenegrin as an official language. There is absolutely nothing that would tell us which language this song is in other than just defaulting to the person's ethnicity, which opens a different can of worms, and even then things are not as clear. So I am here to ask a question, should language in tables simply ignore Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin and default to Serbo-Croatian, with a possible note (kind of like with Zjerm) when we have some confirmation as to which standard is meant to be used?

More information Country, Broadcaster ...

Participants

Country	Broadcaster	Artist	Song	Language	Songwriter(s)
Albania	RTSH	Shkodra Elektronike	"Zjerm"	Albanian[a]	Lekë Gjeloshi Beatriçe Gjergji Kolë Laca
Montenegro	RTCG	Tamara Živković	"Nova zora" (Нова зора)	Serbo-Croatian[b]	Boris Subotić

Close

I'm all ears for suggestions — IмSтevan ^talk 22:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Just wanna add that restarting this conversation popped into my head while I was working on the Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 article, specifically the table of participants in Montesong 2025, due to the fact that the table had 13/15 entries labeled as being in Montenegrin, with Montesong 2025 also having all 16 entries on the article labeled as being in Montenegrin, which is a statistical impossibility, as 43% of Montenegro declares themselves speakers of Serbian, and 34% of Montenegrin. Without having a defining feature to go off, the songwriter might say that the song is in Serbian, the performer might say that it's in Montenegrin (or vice-versa, doesn't matter either way) and nobody would be able to tell either of them that they're wrong. — IмSтevan ^talk 07:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

the contest clearly considers these all to be separate languages given the inclusion of all four BCSM languages in that 2016 interval thing. and presumably at some point they'll put out some bit of social media going on about "there's 18 languages this year and here's what they all are". until we get an official confirmation of the contest's stance I guess it's fine to have this, just unsure if it implies some kind of difference between Nova zora and the prior Montenegrin entries (Dobrodošli etc) which fall into the same kind of grey zone Toffeenix (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I would support defaulting all BCSM languages in these tables to Serbo-Croatian, with added footnotes only when there is explicit confirmation as to the specific variety. If there is no reliable source one way or the other (which will probably be quite rare anyway) then no footnote should be added. That being said, I do worry that this could open up another can of worms with regards to language "separatists" (if that's the right term) who insist on each variety being listed separately; I'm not saying however that that should be a reason to not make this change, just voicing a potential concern. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Since there is no clear answer and in general these specific languages have a history of disagreements, I'd put this under "material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged" from WP:VERIFY. That would mean we do not list any language at all unless a reliable source identifies it. Recall that we always need to have a source for language and it shouldn't be editor-determined when a source cannot be found. This has come up in the past and impacted WP:GA reviews. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists Serbo-Croatian as a language, and the 4 as variants. We can always verify using other sources, which wouldn't be a SYNTH issue. Perhaps we could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages for their thoughts on the topic? — IмSтevan ^talk 13:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

This is going to be a recurrent issue now that Gaza genocide exists as a Wiki page, so should all references to it with regard to Israel's ESC participation since then wikilinked to that page, Gaza war, or both? Pdhadam (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Eurovision.tv is moving to Eurovision.com (https://eurovision.tv/story/time-update-your-bookmarks-eurofans). Eurovision.tv will remain up until sometime next week. I don't know how many sources we have that rely on Eurovision.tv at the moment - would have thought somewhere in the thousands. Eurovision.com is nowhere near as fully fleshed out, is missing results for every year, has no lyrics, attributes entries to the wrong country - in short it's fucked. So unless they move the entire site within a week which they won't do I think we are going to have to archive all of Eurovision.tv as it is.

Is there any way to do this? Toffeenix (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems a lot of links to Eurovision.tv do not have an archive link and will therefore rot, just look at History of the Eurovision Song Contest § References. Updating all of these manually is going to be a pain...

I wonder how script-friendly the Wayback Machine is, maybe it's possible to do this semi-automatically. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If it helps, they've just said on Reddit that detailed voting results, alongside "new profiles, event histories, logos and media" will be available in February. But that's a while with broken sources Toffeenix (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

They also just said here that they will be redirecting the old links, but again that it will take some time. This means it won't be that bad if we fail to update some links, but I'd still rather not go three months with broken links on most Eurovision-related articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

RIP Eurovision.tv. All the links I've tried redirect to the Eurovision.com homepage.  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  07:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Same for JuniorEurovision.tv minus the voting platform.  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  06:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)