Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Home
Talk
Article
Alerts
Assessment
Quality
Articles
Popular
Pages
Formatting
& Guidance
Flag
hearts
MembersUserboxesArchive
(WP Eurovision)

Deletion requests

[edit]

There are multiple Eurovision related discussions ongoing on Commons:

— IмSтevan talk 12:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasts

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Broadcasts on delay

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"National final"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2026

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Intervision Song Contest

[edit]

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)[reply]

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