Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2021/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Supposed drug use

During a green room segment in the grand final, Damiano David, member of the Italian group Måneskin, was seen to be inhaling a line of cocaine. In the group's winner's press conference following their win, a Swedish journalist asked about the allegations. David refused them by suggesting fellow member Thomas Raggi had broken a glass, going on to say "I don't use drugs, please guys, do not say that."[244]

See this and other RS. The voice must be changed. The singer was not seen to be inhaling anything in the short segment and there is no evidence. Instead should be said that some people suggested seeing him on TV inhaling some drug, supposedly cocaine, while bending down at his table.--31.217.34.186 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The band has added on Instagram after the contest that they are willing to get tested to disprove the allegations as they "have nothing to hide." Nesteajr (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC) (13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC))

Agree. The section, for now, should be deleted because there's nothing relevant and evident. Nobody brought up any official charges or anything. It reads like defamatory fake news, it is too trivial and recent to be here. Give it a few days. If anything comes up, they get tested, or something then it should be recovered.--ParoleSonore (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Plus seeing the scene you can see that Damiano's far from table, and the hands are far from the nose. ~~---- DR5996 (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase someone on Twitter; "If you think he was doing cocaine, you've never done cocaine." doktorb _words^deeds 16:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a forum. We are not here to judge ourselves whether or not they used drugs, we simply report on what happened according to reliable sources. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that there are quite a few sources about it, and that even the EBU has mentioned it, I think it's definitely worth mentioning it on Wikipedia as well. (In a neutral way, of course.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's close case now. It is fake news. I wonder if the section should be renamed to "Italian drug use fake news" or keep the "Italian drug use allegations"?--ParoleSonore (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"allegations" looks more neutral to me; "fake news" is used more often to insult news sites than being used in a formal way. Also it isn't even news, it's just rumours. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

have to agree, allegations or rumours do sound more correct to describe the whole case.--ParoleSonore (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian artist name

In all the on screen credits and on the official Eurovision website, the Norwegian artist is credited as 'TIX' not 'Tix'. Although it's just a trivial matter of style, I think TIX is the accurate representation of this artist's name. 65.113.135.165 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, we don't stylize fonts. Unless TIX is an acronym, we would use the standard formatting, which appears to be correct as Tix. Grk1011 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the Italian lyric's censorship incident

Why wouldn't you call this incident? Who says what an incident is? Is the fact it is a lower scale than another incident doesn't make it an incident? The definition of Incident, according to Cambridge English Dictionary is: "an event that is either unpleasant or unusual". It is unusual that words are being censored in the contest, and in other years' articles (such as 2005) it does mention such an even as incident.

Therefore, I believe it is a relevant information that needs to be mentioned on the Incidents section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyzack02 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not an incident. It is an adjustment to the song, similar to what other countries do between a song winning a selection process and then going to ESC. Sometimes they change their performance, sometimes they "revamp" it, sometimes they need to shorten it to 3 mins max, and in the case of Italy, they had to remove swear words that would have been in violation of contest rules. Grk1011 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth... in 1973, the UK artist Cliff Richard was told by the BBC he had to sing the word 'laying' rather than 'lying' for his live performance of the British entry. It's not mentioned in the article. Nor should it be. It's not an incident. Similarly, Iceland's artist was forbidden by the EBU to use a single curse word in her live performance in 2006. You won't find that in the article either.65.113.135.165 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that David sang the original "forbidden" lyrics in the reprise after winning, so the "incident" wasn't changing the song, the incident was David's refusal to comply. Just my 2 cents... 87.155.220.95 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox, Belarus

Please someone add a note in the infobox that Belarus was actually disqualified (in non-returning countries). Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The infobox does not go into that level of detail. It just lists countries that participated in the previous contest, but not this one. It does not attempt to explain or categorize by why. Grk1011 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Malta Incident

Would this be classed as an incident? http://esctoday.com/183476/eurovision-malta-gate-at-pbs/ 81.149.243.201 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone added that before, but Pdhadam removed it in this edit because it didn't actually impact the contest itself, which I agree with. I think it should be added to Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 instead. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this item would be better placed in the Malta in ESC 2021 article as it is not related to the contest itself. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Scoreboard Sourcing

Just putting this out there for the inevitable GA nomination: in previous years, the scoreboard can be downloaded as an .xls file (or a .csv, or whatever, point is it's "an Excel file"). This year there doesn't appear to be one central directory to see the scoreboards and to that extent the source at the top of each scoreboard currently links to the first country in the list alphabetically (Australia, Albania, and Albania again), and the votes to and from them. Unless there's another source which shows this for all countries on one page, it's perhaps at risk of many CN tags. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good that you bring it up; I hadn't noticed that. I guess we could link to Eurovisionworld's scoreboard? It has a similar scoreboard table. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"Moldova's mic drop" section

I personally think this should be removed because although it may be relevant, it is not noteworthy because it's such a small thing compared to the scope of this article (although it's probably noteworthy enough for the Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 article). Also, the section is mostly copied from a primary source which clearly does not describe the incident in a neutral way. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree.--ParoleSonore (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Also agree. Grk1011 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree (obviously, as I wrote it ☺). I think it's relevant because people are talking about it. I already added 2 refs, one of them is the official ESC website mentioning the incident, so that's not nothing. You can easily find more news articles covering it, like here or here or here. Regarding "mostly copied from a primary source": huh? Which part is supposedly copied? No, I did not copy anything. Cheers 87.155.220.95 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make it significant in terms of the contest as a whole though. It is WP:UNDUE weight. It can and should be mentioned in the Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 article. Grk1011 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it is an unnecessary addition for this article per WP:UNDUE; inclusion in the Moldova 2021 is the right level for this kind of incident. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE talks about representing minority/fringe opinions in an article, the mic drop isn't an opinion, so, unsure if WP:UNDUE even applies here. Ignoring that, WP:UNDUE says minor things should not be given more space/weight than is due, it does not say you must leave out minor things completely. Yes, the mic drop was no huge thing, and that's exactly why I tried to write as concise as possible, making this incident's section the shortest of all. Compare that to the "Ukrainian rehearsal stand-in" section, which is 3x as long even though it had no actual consequence on the show, or the huge "Allegations of drug use in the Italian delegation" section, even though nothing came out of it eventually, nobody got disqualified or anything. IMHO, in comparison to that, these 2 quite short sentences about the mic drop are justified, a small section for a small incident. Cheers 87.155.220.95 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Afterthought: I think the "drug allegations" comparison fits well. What did actually happen? A glass broke. Irrelevant. What made it relevant? People/news talking about it! Same: mic drop is no huge deal, but people are talking about it. I think that's worth 2 sentences. Cheers again 87.155.220.95 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, and that's why it is included in Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. It has no real impact on the event itself. The whole section needs to be trimmed down, not just Moldova's tidbit. Grk1011 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The drug use allegations against Italy didn't really impact the event either though right? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would also remove that, but we are talking about Moldova in particular here. Grk1011 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Samira Efendy controversy

Dear Jochem van Hees (talk · contribs), I can see you reverted the controversy about the Azerbaijani participant by KhndzorUtogh. May I bring to your attention that there has been a previous discussion on the artist's article talk page and 2021 Eurovision page was suggested as one of the two possible hosts for this controversy by BabbaQ. Now you are suggesting a third page which has not been suggested before. Shall we, together with Grandmaster who also showed interest in the subject, judge once again all together - which wiki page should optimally host the controversy? I personally would not mind if it is published in Azerbaijan in Eurovision 2021 article, if only we agree here so somebody does not start a revert there and suggest a forth page thus resulting in en endless loop. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for bringing this to my attention! I will take a look at the discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this story does not belong here. It was a very minor controversy that had no reaction from EBU and received no coverage in mainstream media. It was discussed in much detail at Talk:Samira Efendi. It could be mentioned in Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest by representing whatever little attention it received in media of those respective counties, but I do not think it deserves more attention than that. Grandmaster 23:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we need to keep discussing in the original talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Samira_Efendi --Armatura (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Helena-Paparizou-Eurovision-2021.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Scoring

I want to include an acknowledgement that Eric Van Tijn did the scoring for the shows, as I thought it was some of the best ever (the victory theme when Maneskin came out was the best winners theme ever) but it's been disputed when I've tried to add it. Does anyone want to discuss including this detail? I don't think it's any more trivial than all the other credits in the article. --occono (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the template documentation that infobox field is only to be used for the orchestra. But I think that it would fit in the production section. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

50/50 results

Why are the 50/50 results present in the page at all? These have not been used at the contest for over 6 years now? They are more of a curiosity rather than information about the article ImStevan (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This also refers to other years' articles. The 50/50 results have no place in these articles. MutatedMan (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, there's no reason to add information pertaining to what I assume is the 2013-2015 system considering it's no more significant than the many other systems used since the contest's inception. Wegottheflow (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

These appear to be cropping up on several of the post-2015 articles. I reverted most of the edits, however I received pushback from one user on one article. I've opened a related topic on that talk page, placing here for reference: Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2018#including 50/50 results in split tables. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes to split results tables

There have been a couple of modifications to the split result tables here with which I take some issue, principally by ImStevan, and I'd like to open a discussion on these as I didn't want to cause an edit war by reverting these edits. Firstly, including the combined results in these tables I believe is duplication of information already included in the participants and results tables and in the voting results tables (the "total score" columns), so I don't see how this adds further value including here. Secondly, I believe the shading of the countries is somewhat misleading, particularly for the final, as there are no awards for second or third place in the contest; we don't include "silver" and "bronze" elsewhere, so I don't see why this should be added here. Similarly I don't see the value in shading the qualifiers either, and for me it appears a little overwhelming to have that much shading when shaded and non-shaded cells "jump around". Another point is the addition of the "key" at the top of the table, which will actually impact the readability of the table for those using screen readers and I believe therefore contravenes MOS:ACCESS. I would be eager for us to build a consensus on these points, these are my opinions of course and this is a community based project so I welcome the debate. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for being open for discussion about this certain topic Sims2aholic8. I do have to agree on several points here, mainly the key at the top of the table. I did not know how else to include it in the table (for it to collapse with the table) so i just chucked it whenever, and I had no alternative in mind as to where to place it. It should definitely be in there somewhere, I just don't know where. I also take your point on the gold, silver, bronze shading. It is not necessary, but in my opinion the gold could stay, as it does appear in a previous table aswell. I do not agree on duplicate information however. Yes, that information already does appear in the article before, but since the split results and full results are data which correlate, I feel like they belong next to eachother. Scrolling up and down while trying to connect the data together is simply not efficient and is not readable. ImStevan (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@ImStevan: I think potentially a key may be better served placed outside of the table, potentially at the top of the "Scoreboard" section of the article. Since the same colour is being used for all tables it makes sense to have one single key for the qualifier colour and the winner colour. Yes I do get your point about trying to piece together the whole picture from different places, so I understand there. Another point I noticed as well is that you've made the tables sortable; I think this doesn't make sense for this kind of table as it's a lot of different pieces of information on one row, so sorting by one column sorts the entire table by this, e.g. sorting alphabetically by a country in one column will not sort all columns alphabetically as all the data for that country is not on the same row. Hopefully this all makes sense as to where I'm coming from. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ve been keeping an eye on these changes the past few days and I actually agree with some changes ImStevan has made, in particular, I do think the combined result column gives easier readability (which fulfils its purpose as a comprehensive breakdown of the scoring as opposed to the Participating countries section where the entries and running order are the main focus). I also think highlighting the qualifiers for the semis is useful (although I agree the gold silver bronze of the Final part is unnecessary apart from gold perhaps). In terms of the sort tools, it may be viable if the structure of the table is changed so that there are four rows: Country, Combined, Jury, Televote. Wegottheflow (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8:I get where you're both coming from. I definitely agree that simplifying the table into only 4 rows would make it much easier to read, if the table is sortable. The main purpose of sorting was not to allow the countries to be sorted alphabetically, but rather to be able to sort the scores, which, looking back, doesn't make much sense considering the collumns are connected. ImStevan (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wegottheflow: For the changes you are describing in order to make sorting work I think would drastically change the structure of the table and make it less understandable. As it currently is it's very easy to see the placings for each country in each of the different segments of the vote. Changing it to make the country first would mean that readability is taken away. Also, we would then need to add three separate placings columns for each of the different segments, which makes the table even larger than it is now. In this scenario as well, which segment would take precedence for the country to list first, or should it be alphabetical? Another thing to note as well is that sorting functions are not available for mobile users, so even if you could sort by the particular segment you wanted on a PC it's not possible to do so on a phone or tablet, which again makes it a lot less functionable. I hope this makes sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: I don't think wegottheflow's solution is viable either, but if it were to happen, the collumn that goes first and would the default sorting collumn would surely be the combined results.

I believe the current state of the tables is the optimal one, piecing together all the info while being fairly readable — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImStevan (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If we agree on the current state of the tables, I would like to do the same to the tables of previous years.ImStevan (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Awards

Is this really relevant enough to be included in an encyclopedia article about ESC 2021? It was just a small poll for fans held eight months after the contest. In no way does that compare to the event itself. Also, listing it like this makes it look like it was actually part of the contest, which it wasn't. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of difference of opinion over whether to keep these new awards or not. I reverted a good faith edit by @Jochem van Hees: removing this section, and thought it might be better to have a wider discussion about the inclusion these kinda tables in contest articles in general, given that the majority of "other awards" shows are fan-based awards. I don't have a particular preference either way on their inclusion or exclusion, and happy to go with what the broader consensus is. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Oops, sorry, hadn't realised you'd opened a discussion on this already! As I mentioned in my edit summary, and in the above, the majority of the awards in this section are fan-based, so removing this probably calls into question the others as well. I have no preference either way on including or excluding, but just something to consider. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually think about that when removing the Eurovision Awards section, but you are right. At the very least, I think the Marcel Bezençon Awards should stay since they are awarded during the contest by the EBU. My concerns though are that including awards here make them look like they are a part of the contest, and it may be not relevant enough for this already really long article. I agree it would be good to have a broader discussion about this, I'd suggest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That does make a lot of sense, and there are certainly notability questions on almost all of those "awards". I would agree as well that the Marcel Bezençon Awards should stay, as they I believe have more credibility per se than the others. Happy to support raising this question and discussing it further on the WikiProject talk page as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't find them to be notable. They wouldn't meet the threshold to have their own summary article, so to have a whole section each year seems like undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Where's more info about the winning song?

This article doesn't seem to have any information about the winning song outside the lead. Am I missing something? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a wider issue than just this article. See WT:EUROVISION#Lack of info about winning songs in Eurovision articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)