I would like to adress something that's been on my mind for a while now, and that's the fact that we have a "language" column in tables in Eurovision by year articles but not in national finals. Why is that? I understand that for some national finals, its not appropriate because the entire column would be just a repeat of the same cell (for example in Portugal, all entries would have a cell that says "Portugese"), but what about the national finals with 2 or more languages? Here's what I would propose
For national finals that accept entries exclusively in a native language, or if all/most of the entries are to be revealed in the same language, then the column would be excluded:
The participating songs were in Serbian, with several songs including lines or verses in English.
Historically, part of this is because the sources of the information don't list the language. If they do, I think it could be helpful. As articles move up the quality assessment chain, they will need to have refs for that, so it's helpful to do it now. Separately, what makes the language column special over something like genre, or age of singer, for example? Grk1011 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I saw this as an attempt to make these tables more consistent with the one in the main ESC article (as Stevan clarified) and I started to expand them too. Though of course it would be preferable if we listed sources. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Honestly that did cross my mind, and at this point I don't really know why the language column exists. I guess it's a legacy thing, but it would feel wrong to get rid of them. As Ivan noted, yeah, it was a consistency thing — IмSтevantalk11:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Omitting the language column would also make remove a lot of the constant petty back and forth about how many phrases of a random language are required for a footnote, etc. Grk1011 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm the one that changed the name, I believe it's much more appropriate, as incidents might imply violence or disruption, while controversies are a broader term — IмSтevantalk18:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
English is not my native language but I'd say incidents are not controversies. A stage invasion is an incident but it's not a controversy. If the section is named "Controversies", disruptions can't be longer a part of the section, such as stage invasions (1964, 2010, 2018...) and technical disorders (2004 vote counting, 2011 SF1 commentators...). To avoid this, how about naming the section "Controversies and incidents"? EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the lovely words Axel. I think everyone should refer to me as the triggerhappy photographer henceforth. Jokes aside, I happily receive feedback and requests while I'm covering the first and fourth preselection rounds. --Adjoka (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to have the automatic finalists in a different shade of green compared to the rest of the competing countries? Especially after one semi-final ends and the other one is yet to happen, it will seem as if only 5 countries didn't qualify on the map, and the map doesn't have any indication that more countries are yet to be eliminated.
Why are non-qualifiers red, and non-participants yellow? Red seems like a much harsher color, and if we're already doing a traffic light-inspired coloring, shouldn't finalists be green, non-finalists yellow and non-participants red (or perhaps some other color that doesn't catch the eye that easily)?
2. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I can understand why non-qualifiers are red, as it is often seen as an opposite color of green, and these are often used as a pair differentiating a "success" or "failure". Thomediter (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I think these are all valid points, and I could definitely get behind tweaking the colour scheme somewhat to make it clearer and/or less harsh on the eyes. The "pre-qualified" colour does make a lot of sense heading into the contest itself, and for that phase between semis it would make sense to have a differentiating colour for countries in the final, countries still to take part and countries eliminated. While we're at it, given the symbolism of the red, amber, green colours for traffic light systems etc., should we have a go at changing it away entirely from this system? Looking at other maps where countries compete and there are qualifying system, such as UEFA Euro 2020, 2022 FIFA World Cup and 2023 Rugby World Cup, blue is used for qualifiers and yellow for eliminated countries, so potentially not using green and red in our maps at all could be helpful from a "bias" perspective. Could the following colour scheme potentially work?
Blue for competing countries (1956-2003) and finalists (2004-present)
Pink for non-qualifying countries (2004-present) - not sure if this is too close to red though?
Yellow for non-participating countries that previously competed
Purple for countries competing but have not selected their entrant/song
Grey for non-participants with no prior participation history as a sovereign state
While we're talking about maps, I'd like to bring up a previous discussion around maps which was never resolved. There are some discrepancies on the map that need fixing, so if anyone has the necessary SVG skills to help while we're also changing colours that would be fab! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that looks good! I wasn't sure if keeping green for semi-finalists was the right call, and I actually forgot to include a colour for them in my scheme, but I think it works well. Open to other suggestions though if we want to keep brainstorming another colour scheme. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I would change:
Countries competing in the final (selected their entrant/song)
Countries competing in the semi-finals (selected their entrant/song)
Countries eliminated in the semi-finals
Countries that haven't selected their entrant/song
I would avoid using two different shades of grey for the non-participants, but I think having a lighter shade of yellow would be a better option. I can see your point around there being a high contrast leading to focus shifting to the yellow. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The grey color is already used in the winners map. I don't see a problem with a different grey color. The participants in the past are not that important so a darker grey should be fine. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah on reflection I'm happy enough with this colour scheme with the dark grey. There's enough distinction between countries which have and have not participated in the past. The only minor qualm I would have is the current light grey shade makes it quite difficult to see borders between non-participating countries, so potentially another shade which isn't quite as light but also is distinguishable enough from the dark grey would be preferable. I'm thinking mainly here about maps for early contests where the number of competing countries is a lot fewer. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It does look better but I insist that known finalists should be green. Blue color makes country participation in the final uncertain (as it's meant to be for the semi-finlists).
@Smthngnw: Why do you believe that blue shades makes participation uncertain? The key would explicitly state that blue to signify countries that have pre-qualified, and following the semi-finals all countries in the final. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It feels like green countries are more advanced in participation than the blue ones. And especially compared to the red ones. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
How so exactly? From my perspective, especially if you're looking at it from a traffic light rating system, blue can mean "complete", which obviously is further advanced than green, which would be "in progress". This is again why I wanted to get away from the whole "green is good, red is bad" perspective that the current colour scheme has, but I just don't know what other colour we could use the signify the semi-finalists. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Blue and green colors definitely should be switched up, it looks wrong like User:Smthngnw said. And I don’t see why change the colors so soon when only 1 or 2 other users have shown they approval for it Purpley24 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I know this might complicate everything, but there is one additional point I would like to bring up. In, for example, the Eurovision 2024 map, Ukraine is competing, whereas Russia is not. Therefore, the two countries are in separate colours. However, the disputed territory of Crimea is shaded in Ukraine’s colour. Could this be brought in conflict with WP:NPOV? - delta (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The vast majority of countries and territories support Ukraine's claim over territorial integrity in Crimea, including at the United Nations. I don't believe therefore that there is an NPOV violation in this case to place Crimea as part of Ukraine. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to see how the map looks further advanced in the competition, e.g. in-between the two semis, just so we can see all colours in action. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
While I completely support ensuring the colours are distinguishable for those with colour blindness, this list of colours goes back to that whole green and red dichotomy, which as I mentioned above I personally would like to avoid completely. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Red and green are actually two colors that can cause trouble for those with color blindness, blue and red are a great match. Furthermore, even during those 2 days that red and green both exist, they are distinguishable even for those with color blindness — IмSтevantalk18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I do have one problem tho... if dark grey is withdrew and light grey is never competed... which color is no data/no confirmation nor withdrawal — IмSтevantalk18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this colour scheme works really well. It balances the need for inclusion and helps to remove the biases around red and green a little bit. I think the salmon colour works pretty well too, to separate countries at which won't be there before the final participation list has been announced and provide an overview at a glance. I'm wondering if going for yellow for non-qualifiers would be a better option, I'm not sure how that would work from a colour blindness perspective, but then we could move completely away from red-green. Thoughts? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the need to move away from red, it is after all considered a negative color (and non-qualifying is not a good thing) — IмSтevantalk19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The blue finalists as I saw on the recent examples without yellow color are looking good. The FIFA maps use the blue-best, green-good, yellow-mid and red-worst for the result. I'd like to keep this blue-green-red palette for countries as these colors aren't seem to be random and have a consistency and gradation. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning withdrawals from the next contest complicates the map. "Participated in the past" is already self-sufficient clarification. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It would take the role of dark grey early on to indicate which countries have no interest in returning, while dark grey would just be the default map color. When the list of participants comes out, the color is removed and every non-competing country is colored grey. See the first 2 pics above — IмSтevantalk19:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The interest is not relevant. Only a broadcaster conformation and EBU participation list should be included. If the conformation list is empty then the map should consist of the "participated in the past" dark grey and non-participated light grey countries. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬19:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be similar to what we do now, where we only colour in countries which have declined to participate in the event when they announce so or when the participation list drops. I think the situation with Romania this year is such a rare case that possibly creating a whole new category for that would be too much hassle. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me, I hadn’t checked the page for a while. I really like this change and the color shades as well! Let’s just keep in mind to have separate files for the English Wikipedia or to extend the discussion cross-wiki. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I actually like this change of color scheme. The main issue of making a distinction between finalists and semi-finalists, especially for only two days, doesn't seem that bad to me, but that's a personal opinion and I can see why it could pose a problem so... to me it's actually good. The only thing I find weird is getting countries colored only to have them go back to grey later. If I understand correctly, every country that has already participated to ESC starts in a dark shade of grey, some get colored to confirm they're in, some to confirm they're out, and the latter go back to grey in the end ? That's essentially putting a color to say "waiting info", so same discussion as a few months ago. But eh, I don't mind grey, it's lighter so why not. Yoyo360 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for tagging me and for using a colour scheme that helps improve the accessibility of the maps for people who are colour blinded. I am definitely in favour of changing the colours and believe this will give more clarity to the maps. Here's some feedback I have on the colours:
Changing the colour of countries that participated in the past to dark grey is a great idea. I do believe, however, that there is no need for the additional colour for countries who have confirmed their non-participation before the full list of participants is announced. Echoing what @Smthngnw mentioned, "Countries that participated in the past" is already self-sufficient clarification.
I think we should use an even lighter grey for countries that have never participated in ESC, like the one in the winners map as I don't think the two shades of grey are different enough. Specifically looking at Greenland as an example, it's kind of hard to tell which grey is being used.
I think that the blue label should specifically be "Competing countries in the final" for 2004 onwards rather than just "Competing countries", otherwise it could be interpreted that "Countries eliminated in semi-finals" are not considered competing countries, which would only be true for the pre-qualification round of 1996.
Lastly I just wanted to ensure this change only effects en-wikipedia? Will we ensure we have a seperate file to use as I believe other language wikipedias will require to have their own discussion should they want to implement this change.
Specifically on your shades of grey comment, earlier examples did have a lighter shade but this made it difficult to identify the borders between countries which had never competed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
My bad, I noticed that Greenland was mistakenly coloured with a different grey which caused my confusion. In regards to differentiating countries with no data and countries that won't compete I still think that's not that important, however, I'm not heavily against it if the consensus is that we should include that data on the map. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk12:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Automatic-finalist and semi-finalist countries without a performer/song both are the same color, but when they select they change into two different colors. Maybe pink or another color should be distributed for the automatic-finalists? I'd like to keep the countries without a performer/song out of the blue-to-green-to-red grade and close to the current dark purple color. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I added the change to the Template sandbox. The new values are BlueSelected, GreenSelected, Salmon (3 values used before the list of participants is out; used with Purple), Map ListOut (after the list), Map EverybodyPicked (mid March), Map AfterSF1, Map Final. The last 4 are there to simplify things by having one value display everything that's necessary rather than activating the legend one value at a time — IмSтevantalk21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
We could potentially revisit those colour schemes as well to make then more consistent with the main maps (i.e. blue to participants/finalists). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I don't agree with framing the Faroe Islands like this. The framing is only done in cases where the country would be too small to identify normally and where we enlarge the image as well, which isn't being done here either. Additionally there is no Faroese broadcaster within the EBU yet. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: If help is needed, I have Inkscape and can pretty easily take the older maps to help you change the color scheme. Yoyo360 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I have created a new template file at File:Eurovision events Map 2.svg, which should be used going forwards when creating the maps. Old versions have some discrepancies in country borders and shapes, so to avoid that use this file. And if anyone needs to make any underlying changes to the file for any other fixes that aren't just changing colours they should also make the same changes to this file to ensure that they can be replicated going forward on all files. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Would you have blue then as the colour for the semi-finalists? Honestly I think blue for finalists, green for semi-finalists up until the contest and then red for non-qualified acts is the best solution. As has been established above, green-red combinations cause issues for people with colour blindness, so I would rather there be as few cases of overlapping green and red in the maps long-term as possible. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The shading of red used works very well with the blue as the finalists in my opinion, and as established already, this is the best option for people with various forms of colour blindness. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk06:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The shades seem to go very well with each other and I dare say they look even more pleasing to the eye than the ones of the previous scheme. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems those are more colors (and more similarly-looking) than we need here though, so I believe it’s more convenient to keep the current scheme with a neater distinction among the shades used. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
One question for everyone saying "green is better/makes more sense etc.", do you feel this way only because that's what you're used to seeing, or do you have any logical reason that you'd like to share other than your own personal opinion? As has been bought up repeatedly, green-red combinations are notoriously difficult for colour blind people, so logically why would we want to make people's lives more difficult? I know there were no complaints necessarily before about it, but I would concur with the comments from Aris and Ivan that the blue and red combo works really well, and is a lot less overwhelming compared to the previous green-red-yellow scheme. My advice would be to give it time, there have been a lot of different things happening across our articles lately and I personally believe they are all for the best. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@ImStevan: Just noticed you had altered the colour scheme slightly. I had been in the middle of creating a bunch of maps, so a lot of them are up with the original darker colours. Figured best to raise the discussion here about this too. Personally I prefer the darker colours, I found the brighter colours a bit too garish in my opinion, but also happy to discuss if anyone has any other opinions on this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Additional referencing for countries competing in a specific Eurovision year.
A bit hard to make a good title for this, but I was using wikipedia the other day to do some research of Eurovision data, when I realized how frustrating it was to find pages like Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004.
I am not sure whether to change the references that happen when you click on i.e. 2004 from Eurovision Song Contest 2004 to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004. But I really feel like adding a reference to Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 (and for the other years) somewhere in the table would be extremely useful.
I tried to add these references when you clicked on the place in the table. This was met with reversions, and so instead of going on an endless war in reversion, I wanted to hear some opinions on this.
I am very open to the reference not being via the country's place, but I really believe that these references would be an amazing addition. Thomediter (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I can agree with that confusion, it happened to myself at the beginning. Usually, one has to navigate to the national pages by using the templates at the end of the page but the template is not accessible in the mobile version (at least in the Wikipedia app) so it can be frustrating.
On the other hand, if we replace the "ESC year" links in the participation overview table by the corresponding "country in the ESC year" link, where would we include the "ESC year" link then? Having them both included in the table could be also confusing and "inflate" the table too much...
Another option would be creating a separate section and table for "National selection" overview with columns for year (=> "Country by ESC year" link), winner, selection mode ...? EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there would be disadvantages if we just replace the "ESC year". I wondered if referencing through the number indicating their final placement or final points total, could be a possibility. I don't think the tables would be that much inflated, I mean, at Eurovision Song Contest 2024, there is a table referencing - Country, Broadcaster, Artist, Song, Language, Songwriter(s), and if that's not too much inflating, I don't see that this would be.Thomediter (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not opposed to EurovisionLibrarian's suggestion of including a new segment for "National selections" with tables or prose as appropriate covering each country's selection process. In fact this is best practice for these articles, and have been featured in Good Article examples such as the articles on Sammarinese and Andorran participation. However, per MOS:PROSE, we should be striving to use prose, and not tables or lists, where possible, and only for very complex information, such as the participation and results tables on Eurovision articles, are tables appropriate. A table containing information on a country's national selection information may be appropriate, but it depends on the contest. This information also will need to be backed up by reliable sources, and for many countries there are very few reliable sources that we can use to verify their selection process each year sufficiently enough to warrant adding a table or list to the article. This is why for other GA nominees, such as the Luxembourg article, this section is not included as information on previous NFs is mainly found only on unreliable fan sites, therefore the amount of verifiable information that can be included is limited. Potentially one solution could be to add a direct link to each country's main category (in the case of Cyprus this would be Category:Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest) as a {{see also}} or similar as part of the "Participation overview" or other section, as a convenient way to find the links to all "country by year" articles on mobile devices. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not bad at all, in my opinion (apart from the fact that I think "testing" should happen in sandboxes, not on live pages, but that's a different story). Of course, we should pay attention not to link to any redirects which link to the country page itself. In that case the cell probably has to stay empty.
The "see also" solution suggested by Sims2aholic8 is also possible but that would mean writing a "Selection process" prose section about the national selection history of each country (sourced, needless to say). It would be nice indeed to have such a section in the long term for each country page. That would also give us the opportunity to rewrite the "Contest history" or "History" sections of the country pages – many of them are badly sourced, focus too much on statistics, and/or focus on the 21th century (Italy, Germany). EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
This would work for San Marino given that all articles exist, however I worry about how this might work for the likes of Luxembourg or Monaco where the majority of articles are missing. Would we then have a column where we only have a handful of links and the rest are blank? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I thought about putting the N/A grayed out fill there. I don't have a problem with harmless tests on live pages, it's the experimental ones that are the concern. Also this way brings more folks in. Grk1011 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8 Thanks for bringing up that point. Indeed, countries with a long participation history before the 1990s and which have held no public selections then have many per year articles missing (i.e. Monaco, Luxembourg; as well as Austria and Switzerland for the 1950s-1980s). If the column is omitted only for those countries, this would lead to inconsistency. If the column is present in the table with many empty cells, this would look a bit awkward on those countries' pages. I nevertheless have a preference for the second option. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd also suggest adding a column of this type to the participating countries tables on the main contest articles, which also suffer from difficult navigation to these articles. Potentially in place of the unsourced languages column (recall that I also feel language is just one of many characteristics of a song and its presence in the table suggests it has some sort of impact). Grk1011 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
If this new column were to be introduced on these tables as well, which I would tentatively support, what would we replace the current links in the country column with? One possibility I can think of is to the main country participation articles, since these are currently not present anywhere within these articles. Regarding the languages column, would you be proposing we remove these from all articles (including the country in contest and country by year articles)? I can certainly see your argument for that, especially on some of the country by year articles where this information is wholly unsourced, but I fear a massive pushback from a subsection of readers so I feel that this needs a new consensus outside of this discussion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd support changing the pipe for the country column to the country in ESC target. As of now, I think we have it set up in a way that sort of makes sense, but also is a bit WP:EASTERy (I wouldn't be surprised if some folks think that link goes to the country's article). Also, you're right, removing languages would definitely be a larger discussion, and I only mention it because I wouldn't want our decision on the "more info" column to be based on "too many columns already". Grk1011 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I can kinda see where you're coming from with the EASTER argument. It's one of those "in the bubble" things I guess where it makes sense to us but it may not make sense to the average reader. Given the split now of the detailed participants info from the results tables on the yearly articles, would you envisage changing the country links in the results tables as well, either to the main country articles or making them unlinked? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to have it in the participants section since the articles are about each country's participation overall. The results section has more space for additional columns, but if we did that, perhaps a pipe-to-"At Eurovision" link would be appropriate. Grk1011 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting we also add the column to the results tables, I think having them just in the participants table is the way to go, my question was more about whether we change the country links in the results tables as well, and if so to what? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I've made the initial change to Eurovision Song Contest 2024 in the hopes of generating additional discussion. 14:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this makes the tables on the main contest articles feel more cluttered. In my opinion, if the reader wants to know more about the country in the contest overall, they can access it via the country in the year article anyways. As for the country in the year articles themselves, I think the above examples seem messy, especially for countries such as Luxembourg. Maybe we could make a new section titled something like "Participation articles by year" with collapsible lists that link to the country in edition articles? That could be further categorized by decade and would avoid the blanks on the participation overview tables. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk16:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I also think this sounds like a great idea! It could be exactly the kind of solution we need for the country articles that is visible and easily accessible. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I went ahead and did some work in the sandbox to test out a new "Participation history" section using Sweden as an example. Similar to the Olympics infobox contests are listed only from when the country first entered, with links for any existing "country-by-year" articles, no links for redirects, greyed out text for contests where the country did not participate, and any winning entries are currently shown in bold. This is pulled automatically from individual templates underneath the infobox, e.g. Template:Infobox song contest country/Sweden. Eager to hear thoughts and any areas for improvements. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! This is a great start. My preliminary thoughts are that it would be nice if they could be lined up linearly instead of each row offset, and I'm on the fence about the formatting for the various participation outcomes when it doesn't have a key (and would be bulky/weird to add one). Grk1011 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to add padding to the template, but I'm not that sure whether it needs to apply to the infobox or the country templates. Tried to add it to the Sweden template but it didn't seem to work, so any thoughts on how to solve this would be good! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Imagemap Highlight
Eurovision maps of Russian Wikipedia using this code highlight countries on hover and create a list of links below. I'd like to have this feature on English Wikipedia too. What do you think about it?
To be able to test it out in English Wikipedia you should:
One problem I can see straight away is that the highlighting is applicable to all countries, whether they are participating or not. The links we have on our maps link to the specific country-by-year articles, so we would need to modify the code to highlight only those countries that are participating in each year's contest. The code is also not perfect because instead of highlighting the outline of Australia it instead highlights the entire callout box. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I find this unnecessary. My question would be how does this add anything useful? On desktop when you hover your mouse over a country it shows the name of the article it's linking to. On mobile while that's not the case, seeing as you can't hover anyways, does it really add anything? Additionally, referring to MOS:DL, I don't see how adding a list of links below the map would help the readers. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk07:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
False hopes, gossips, guesses, predictions are all irrelevant. Only official confirmation of participation in the corresponding contest must matter. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. However, for the two countries listed so far (Estonia and North Macedonia) there have been public statements/releases by the broadcasters themselves, that’s my main focus. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
We (meaning others included as well) have had this similar conversation many times over and it's exhausting to have to rehash it on each article with you. Wikipedia has policies on WP:SPECULATION. If a source says "this may happen" or "this will happen only if this x, y, and z happen", it is likely not appropriate to mention unless it is almost certain to. Details about a future confirmed event are fine (that's what ESC 2024 and JESC 2024) are after all, but saying "so and so is thinking about something" is inappropriate and I believe the guidelines are clear that it cannot be included. Wikipedia is not here to spread news or to be a place for people to find out the current status of every tangential aspect of the contest; it records things that have already happened. With respect to Estonia, that article just says that they intend to look into some changes if they compete; for North Macedonia, a reporter found a line item in a state budget and then wrote an article about it. None of these have reached the threshold for serious consideration. Grk1011 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how including info coming from the broadcasters themselves would go against WP:SPECULATION. We're not speculating that the broadcaster is considering participation, we have a source that backs that up. Regarding North Macedonia specifically, why should we not include the information that there is a line in the state budget referring to JESC participation? We're not speculating that there is a line, it's a fact. And I strongly disagree that Wikipedia is only to record things that have already happened. If that were the case, we would only create the JESC article after the contest is held. The line being placed in the state budget has already been placed there, whether provisionally or not, it should still be mentioned. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk07:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The speculation is about participation, not that the information exists. Having a whole section of maybes, including those that are not official announcements, but rather synthesis (drawing conclusions not stated in the source) by journalists or editors, isn't something that I've see elsewhere on Wiki. In the past, I've see the concerning cycle of adding a bunch of misleading interest statements based on a past year's participant's comments, or a tv host's remarks, etc., only for them to not take part and we just delete the information as "oh well, maybe next year". We really need to tighten up this section if we want these articles to continue to move up the quality chain to GA, FA, or what have you. Grk1011 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawal confirmations
So currently, Nordic countries confirmed they won't be present at JESC 2024, however they are colored the same way as countries that stated nothing related to competing. Any ideas on how to adress this? — IмSтevantalk11:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
There is no such thing as withdrawing; they opted to not take part this year. I think that makes them the same as the others that aren't taking part. It can make sense mentioning that they took place the prior year in prose, but I don't feel that it's relevant for the map. Grk1011 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's better to specify withdrawal in the map as something that only occur if a country that qualified in the semi-final decided not to participate in the final. If a country didn't qualify and didn't bother to vote in the final it is still not withdrawing as it's the entry that participates, not the voters. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬16:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I personally don't see the need for this. I don't feel that we need a different colour for every single eventuality of a country's participation in the event, especially as with the current JESC stage where confirmations are coming from a variety of sources, both reliable and unreliable. Too many colours makes the map more illegible and detracts from what should be a quick overview and not the main source of information. All this information can be much more easily explained in prose within the article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand where the "at least once" group came from or why that is important. Isn't it covered by the other one? If this is just a temporary map until the final list of participants is announced, then I'd say don't bother with these seemingly arbitrary groupings. Are sources separating them like this? Remember that you'll need a source for anything in the map. Grk1011 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
These were exactly the questions I had as well. From what I can tell it's an attempt to split the "non-participating countries" into those that have said anything about the current contest and those that haven't, and yes I believe it would be a temporary thing, and they would all go back to the dark grey when the participants list is announced. This is why I think it is a really unnecessary feature, because why does it matter if a broadcaster has said they're not taking part? It's putting too much stock in something that is not happening. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just looking at this from a fan's perspective where it's useful to see which countries still have a chance of competing and which ones will certainly not. If everybody else agrees we can get rid of the peach/orange color — IмSтevantalk15:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
While I understand Grk1011 and Sims2aholic8's point, I feel I am more on Stevan's side on this. As long as there's info provided by the broadcasters, it doesn't hurt to have it in the map. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Overall the problem is the to see which countries still have a chance of competing comment. Under no circumstances can we lead readers to believe something that is not stated in the sources. There are websites that might keep track of that, but Wikipedia isn't set up to be a source for news or status updates. As an encyclopedia, we document what happened. To respond to the "doesn't hurt" comment, I think the problem is that even if it were included, it does hurt because we can't figure out how to accurately portray it. Grk1011 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the top right side becomes too crammed. Maybe it's better to add a little Wales rectangle nearby the British Isles.
PS: I think the map demonstrates the oceans too much. I'd cut it to Portugal and Iceland in the West, to Norway in the North, to Azerbaijan in the East and kept the same South. 𝐒𝐦𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐠𝐧𝐰💬16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with the crop on the east, but I think Greenland should still be on the map. I think we should uncrop it just to avoid link-mapping issues and having to remake all the maps — IмSтevantalk17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this cropping looks a bit too tight. And let's again not forget that, if we decide to use a new crop, huge edits should be made thoughout all the linked maps as implemented in the infoboxes. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we only need a small Wales icon and have it placed somewhere near the British Isles to also help avoid having to re-map Russia. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but having two separate panels scatted around the map looks cluttered, they looked much better next to each other. -- AxG/✉14:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I find it weird to have an inset that's not an inset (it's the same size). Would recommend a box (maybe with zoom) similar to the microstates. Grk1011 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying to add Yugoslavia to a JESC map, I'm just pointing out that a Wales inset was much more neatly placed to the left of Australia, much how this map is also placed together with Australia. AxG/✉17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My question is regarding Kosovo's inclusion on Eurovision maps. While it makes sense to have it included in the more recent maps, why is it included in the 2008 contest map? At the time, 40 countries had recognized Kosovo's independence, 57 by the 2009 contest, and 67 by the 2010 contest; where exactly is the line drawn? Additionally, if we're going by the arguement that it having sufficient recognition today warrants its inclusion since its founding, could the same arguement be made about including Kosovo on the 90s contests maps? — IмSтevantalk18:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe the original reason Kosovo was included on the map from 2008 is that this is after the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. The difference between the 2008 declaration and the 1991 declaration is the international recognition that came almost immediately following the second declaration. 40 countries in 2008 would still represent around 20% of all countries, so it's hardly a small number, and is markedly different from other situations of breakaway territories which have almost no international recognition after decades of de facto independence. On a related note, File:ESC 1991 Map 2.svg shows Estonia and Latvia in a similar position, as these countries declared independence in 1990 but did not achieve full independence or join the UN until after the 1991 contest. There could be a case for having Kosovo as a separate entity on all maps going back to the 1992 contest, given that Kosovo was never fully part of FR Yugoslavia institutions, or the 2000 contest, after UNMIK was created. We already list Kosovo as a non-participating broadcaster for a number of years post-UNMIK, so there would be a logic to also having Kosovo separate from FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
While updating the maps with the new geographical features and corrections, I have created a new version of the 2007 map which shows Kosovo as separate from Serbia but with the same shading as Serbia, to indicate that while Kosovo was not nominally independent or had not yet declared its independence, that under UNMIK it was run separately from the rest of Serbia. My thoughts would be that this separate dotted border for Kosovo but still connected to Serbia/Serbia and Montenegro/FR Yugoslavia in terms of shading would be used on maps from 2000 onwards (after the establishment of UNMIK). Any thoughts? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I see the vision but the UN itself was recognizing it as Serbian territory, and Kosovo itself was not asserting a position of independence. If not a single country, including the country that would be formed on the territory in question, was claiming its independence, I don't see the purpose — IмSтevantalk17:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah after I posted this I read more into it and the UN position was that Serbian territory was not in question with UNMIK, so I will retract this position and support all maps pre-Kosovan declaration of independence making no distinction between Kosovo and Serbia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
National finals and languages
I would like to adress something that's been on my mind for a while now, and that's the fact that we have a "language" column in tables in Eurovision by year articles but not in national finals. Why is that? I understand that for some national finals, its not appropriate because the entire column would be just a repeat of the same cell (for example in Portugal, all entries would have a cell that says "Portugese"), but what about the national finals with 2 or more languages? Here's what I would propose
For national finals that accept entries exclusively in a native language, or if all/most of the entries are to be revealed in the same language, then the column would be excluded:
The participating songs were in Serbian, with several songs including lines or verses in English.
Historically, part of this is because the sources of the information don't list the language. If they do, I think it could be helpful. As articles move up the quality assessment chain, they will need to have refs for that, so it's helpful to do it now. Separately, what makes the language column special over something like genre, or age of singer, for example? Grk1011 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I saw this as an attempt to make these tables more consistent with the one in the main ESC article (as Stevan clarified) and I started to expand them too. Though of course it would be preferable if we listed sources. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Honestly that did cross my mind, and at this point I don't really know why the language column exists. I guess it's a legacy thing, but it would feel wrong to get rid of them. As Ivan noted, yeah, it was a consistency thing — IмSтevantalk11:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Omitting the language column would also make remove a lot of the constant petty back and forth about how many phrases of a random language are required for a footnote, etc. Grk1011 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm the one that changed the name, I believe it's much more appropriate, as incidents might imply violence or disruption, while controversies are a broader term — IмSтevantalk18:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
English is not my native language but I'd say incidents are not controversies. A stage invasion is an incident but it's not a controversy. If the section is named "Controversies", disruptions can't be longer a part of the section, such as stage invasions (1964, 2010, 2018...) and technical disorders (2004 vote counting, 2011 SF1 commentators...). To avoid this, how about naming the section "Controversies and incidents"? EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-5.jpg)
Comment: I should note that we should also be careful when picking colors and taking color blindness into account. Here are the 4 colors we're using now — IмSтevan talk 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
For the most recent participation see
