Talk:Eurovision Song Contest

Active discussions
Eurovision Song Contest is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 12, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
June 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 28, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 19, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
August 13, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
July 14, 2020Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 28, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 24, 2009, and May 24, 2018.
Current status: Former featured article


Hey Sims2aholic8, thanks for your will and effort, here is my view, which I know some of it relates to the way the lead looks at the actual article for some years now, not necessarily related to your own edits:

  • Eurovision network - A fundamental miss. This is the umbrella medium for the countries TV broadcasters, as well as, therefore, the actual thing the contest's named after. The contest started mainly as EBU's desire to experiment with, and expand, TV transmission and programs exchange in 1950s Europe, manifested in this specific network. Also proposed in the past for each Eurovision event article to introduce both EBU and its network as part of a coherent opening definition instead of a circulated "The 1995 Eurovision Song Contest is the 40th edition of the annual Eurovision Song Contest" for example..." Also, should be "is" in these articles, not "was". Let alone, the EBU is mentioned later in the articles but not in the lead, and with 1956's article exception for introducing EBU further stressing this point. So back to here, I strongly suggest inserting the Eurovision network as well.
  • Euroradio - The Eurovision (network) article also point this, as an umbrella for this medium's type broadcasts, so worth mentioning too, also as the current paragraph's continuation points the contest's essence - original songs submitted to be performed on live television and radio.
  • Cancelled 2020-event at the 1st paragraph, on the other hand - Pointing of this parenthetical info in a paragraph shaped to focus on the general definition, looks too fringe/alternative; and it's pointed again at the lead's 2nd paragraph anyway, and in the right context of explanations about the length of the contest's existence. Same for "held since 1956", which repeats, at the same context, same 2nd paragraph.
  • "held every year" and "primarily European" - which leads to pointing the cancelled 2020. Also redundant, after the "an annual international...". + "international" and "primarily European countries" can get accurate and amalgamated with the first replaced by "pan-European".
  • Recent winner - Don't see the point, and pointing along with the song the singer, writers and composers; and also in the lead. Perhaps "WP:RECENT" refers only to cases of leaving a "blur" period resulting from a contributor's point in time when donating info, expressing "recently" or "lately". However, I do think this rule of thumb should be inclusive of cases which mention a year/date because they are "a most recent" case "for now". So I personally don't flow with this kind of info.
  • Notable artists; overall, I object parenthesis - especially in the lead, as the 2020 cancellation case. What's important enough to be pointed out in the lead, therefore comes across as a kind of paradoxical intention by appearing in parenthesis in the lead. An option is to not mention their achievements/countries since what's most important here is themselves, these brand names for being successful outside the contest anyway. Or just as easily be hyphenated instead of parenthesis: "Celine Dion - winner for Switzerland". But actually my favorite option here is grouping winners and others like this: "includes two of the contest's winners Celine Dion and ABBA for Switzerland and Sweden respectively?, as well as the two representatives Julio Iglesias for Spain? and Olivia Newton-john for United Kingdom?.
  • I also really like your change to mention these four, indeed strong worldwide notability compared to the current less clear worldwide success selection as Lena for Germany and Dana for Israel. So I support your presentation here.

Back to the 1st paragraph - not entirely sure about the phrasing for the umbrella networks; if it warrants clarifying they signal to countries/areas broadcasters. So overall, this is my proposed presentation for the opening:

"The Eurovision Song Contest (French: Concours Eurovision de la chanson) is an annual pan-European international song competition held every year by the European Broadcasting Union, transmitted (to regional broadcasters?) via its Eurovision and Euroradio networks. since 1956 (with the exception of 2020), with participants representing primarily European countries. Each participating country submits an original song to be performed on live television and radio, then..."

Thanks for your draft, and for your attention. אומנות (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@אומנות: Hi, thanks for reaching out, you've made some really good points there that I'm sure we can include! The information related to the Eurovision network is included in the "origins" paragraph at present, but it is definitely worth a mention in the lead, especially given your arguments above. As for your points re: recentism, it is definitely a point of contention for me too, which is why I've removed references to 2020 from the lead and will take out the 2019 winner as well. Fundamentally this article should be written with a view that anyone could look at it at any point in the future and (barring any more significant rule changes) it should still be consistently relevant to that time period. Of course facts are going to become out of date, with rule changes and new records, but that entry on recent winner will change every year so it's highly subject to change. You also made a good point regarding parentheses (or as I call them, brackets, see Hiberno-English), so will definitely have a re-write for that (potentially even remove that information entirely, if it's on the artist's articles themselves, and we can include further down the article).
Thanks again for your contributions, this is definitely the kind of thing that will help the article get back to the best! Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8:, thank you for your quick reply! And for containing my thoughts, for already keeping eagerly working, even accepting a lot of my views on the draft itself! I think the lead looks much better and very good already. I thought yesterday when I came to contact you, that you did a terrific job, per your idea to mention those four worldwide established artists which I noticed for now (still didn't see other stuff you may have changed or added yesterday before we talked). And while on the other hand, most of my views for improvement, if not all, addressed stuff that existed in the lead before you worked on it anyway.
I do still want to sharpen some of my views for yours and others consideration. Also out of thinking maybe you still consider some stuff and haven't gotten to change. But if it's because you disagree and see otherwise, of course I accept, and let you keep seeing what others think, maybe all others agree with you. :-)
  • What I wanna keep wondering on is first: "held every year" vs. "annual" and "primarily European countries"+"international" vs. "pan-European". I think if there is an option to epitomize an explanation to one word, its always better especially for a lead and an opening definition flow. Also in the case of "annual" - it catches the essence and purpose of the event's general running procedure as until 2020, and going on from 2021, while "held every year" comes as a somewhat problematic description since in fact it wasn't held every year because of 2020. You understand what I mean?
  • I take into account "pan-European" as something more layered than my understanding capture; if it means something somewhat different or beyond: can be "countries all over the world but still connected to a European organization or connected to some kind of European flavor". In other words, if this term has a more complex/several meaning/s and can confuse the reader, I understand your preference to avoid it.
  • Continuing from the above: I wanna clarify that I actually do think its worth mentioning 2020 cancellation in the lead as the most unique thing to happen in the contest's history eventually, just that it shouldn't like "interfere" with the generic essence-definition of the contest as an annual thing which should be served by the opening definition, and as it was already also mentioned in the appropriate (to my taste) existence-running explanation at the 2nd paragraph, and albeit that it shouldn't appear in brackets. But also, yeah! I just earlier noticed how the current article even repeats the running-period and 2020 cancellation for a 3rd time at the 2nd paragraph, in the phrase of "held for 64 years until cancelled in 2020" and adds "due to the COVID19". Yeah, I think that's too much and repetitive and I agree you removed that for the draft.
  • The change from "song" to "music competition" - I prefer the first since its more specific as anyone involved (singer, songwriters) are producing music with lyrics and singing, while music covers also instrumental pieces.
  • I know my proposal for "transmitted via" the networks was not entirely "cooked", I do still wonder though if we can come up with a way of attaching "Eurovision and Euroradio networks" to the first EBU mention, to explain the name and existence medium of the contest, as part of the very opening definition? Also by that, to avoid repeating "EBU" later at the 1st paragraph? In Hebrew it's easier to even mention the networks before EBU, as on "its behalf"/"under EBU as to finish the definition with the overall EBU organization. This is how I at least shaped the definition on the Hebrew Wikipedia for example, also on the individual events articles. So maybe something like "transmitted to national broadcasters via the Eurovision and Euroradio networks on behalf of/under the European Broadcasting Union"? Or a better description you may have? If not, I understand, and by your response I can anyway be happy to see and learn further from you about this in case you can accurate me or have other ideas. :-)
  • Yeah I'm happy you also don't see the need for recent winner, and I stress that for me it's also because it's not notable as every edition produces a new winner, while Portugal 2017 and Norway 2009, and Ireland 4 wins in the 1990s achievements, are noteworthy by nature of breaking records, and with that records which will likely be beaten only few years from now, so won't need to be updated in the lead every year. That's a good example for how something notable goes hand in hand with lasting for a long stable period. :-) I do also wonder though if it the singers and songwriters should be mentioned instead of just pointing 2017 Protugal, Ireland 1992, 1993 etc' in the lead, if anyway its a summary for their therefore required appearance under a dedicated chapter later in the article.
  • That's also like you removed countries for worldwide established artists from the draft's lead now, which I think it's the best in terms of focus and flow! "...notable artists include Abba, Celine Dion..." I like it.
Okay, so that's pretty much all my most detailed thoughts for the lead. I will be happy of course if you want to give feedback and further thoughts for my last wonderment when you can. Now I will just answer to your points and when I understand, shortly, without keeping with more proposals and thoughts of my own, to step aside and let you wait for others and talk to others now deeply. Thanks again for taking the dawning task on yourself and for all your work in this field! :-) אומנות (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks again for your comments and suggestions! I think it's always a good thing to learn from each other and that we can collaborate and reuse good ideas from other versions of Wikipedia as well, so thanks for contributing what works well on the Hebrew version. I'll take on each of your points in turn:
  • Yes that's a good point you raised about "held every year" vs. "annual" etc. I'll take a re-read of the lead to see if there's a way of streamlining it.
  • I think it's quite a tricky thing to convey the scope of the contest nowadays, especially since Australia has entered the fold, but even before then with Israel, Morocco and the Caucuses and the different definitions of what counts as Europe. I included "pan-European" in the JESC section as a counterpoint to the Scandinavia-only MGP Nordic, but there may be a case to rather use "international" in the same way as the main contest, given Australia, Kazakhstan and other countries which straddle Europe and Asia compete.
  • Yeah on reflection including the 2020 cancellation in the lead would be considered relevant, and as you say it's finding the right balance of coverage when it will definitely be included further down the article. I'll have to take that one away with me to see how I can include it in the best way.
  • Song vs. music is a good point, especially since no live music has been used now for a number of years.
  • Again I'll have to take this one away on how we include Eurovision network in the lead in the best way. Of course you don't want to have many run-on sentences, but it's a good point re. repeating the same phrases or acronyms in a paragraph.
Thanks again for your contributions, and of course feel free to continue to chip in to where you feel relevant. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Thank you for the further considerations cooperation!
  • Yeah I think the solution for 2020 cancellation's already lies at the actual article 2nd paragraph opening, but perhaps like this: "had been held broadcasting every year since its inauguration in 1956 with the exception until 2019, due to the cancellation of the cancelled 2020 edition". As the scheduled 2021-and-on leaves out only 2020, the "until 2019" seems unneeded "full stop" impression, at the actual article.
  • Thanks for your further thoughts about song vs. music - good point about no live music either, just stressing my view stems from competing songs, while instrumental could have always be performed only as side-kicks, for the show's general entertainment.
  • Thanks for your further thoughts about "International" and the umbrella networks as well! I also once proposed "international" for individual articles :-) but then me and others accepted it ain't for countries randomly spread across the world, and I didn't think about pan-European then. Following your explanations here, and if I do understand the term correctly - I do however want to take a minute: Generally west Asia and north Africa seem "pan" to me by that the EBU's signal, as a European governing body, reaches them along with its other programmers exchange, and also having European populations or other influences by the continent; Australia's mostly western population which experience the contest since the early 1980s; Cyprus and Armenia as culturally European; and the west tip of Kazakhstan, Turkey and north Caucasus within Georgia and Azerbaijan which is geographically Europe; even when United States joins its as associate EBU member. So the EBU is the "glue" here. So I refer to this, but, if you still see this as tricky and I understand the complication here to define, as well as your knowledge for some of these geographically and culturally Eurasian and Australia, which is indeed quite a world spread especially come the U.S, I can accept "international".
  • And yeah I enjoy talking to you and in general about such stuff but so that people can keep up and participate with their own replies and further ideas as I loaded a lot here, I will give it about a week to raise anyway small and not so urgent 1-2 other stuff I further thought about. I made a mistake that I didn't create this discussion with level-2 sub-section instead of just bullet points, to dedicate to each of these things to react to, within this lead discussion. With that I think we quite easily managed to cover impressive developments and openness, and I thank you for your ongoing invitation for me to raise other stuff I can think about! אומנות (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Ho, following your previous comment that you consider about 2020, I immediately reacted here and just now saw you updated the draft. I think a just stating the cancellation keeps the focus on the annual general flow, and teases the reader to go read further the chapter of what happened in 2020, even to see over there the COVID19 reference. I leave it for you to consider, if you want to further take a look at my suggestion above. :) אומנות (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks again for your comments! I've included a number of them already in the draft over the couple days, especially the COVID reference in the lead. I'll be sure to consider your points when I continue to fill out the article. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Hey yeah I checked the draft today to think about other stuff and other chapters to talk in the future, and was surprised to see you already implemented and share the same opinion with more of my views as well! I always stay open to that my proposals in themselves can be improved, as with the insertion of the networks that I know has something problematic. Actually one of the other things I still wanted to keep talking about in few days was the pointing of singers/songs for the lead-highest scores achievements, but I see you now present it too as just the country-year-entry, linked, which I really think it's the best! The 2020 edition phrase was even what I already saw at 1st paragraph, just wrong place and inappropriate brackets for me :). It really looks great at the 2nd paragraph opening, the way you put it after "since 1956". I also noticed you removed Australia joining in 2015 from the lead. It also bothers me in the current lead. Thanks for that too, you save me the trouble discussing that haha... and thanks for all your ongoing work these past 2 days! אומנות (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: Hey, congrats on finishing adding all the desired material and thanks for posting you're ready for further feedback! I decided to also wait with these lead stuff until you let know you're done. I first post smaller suggestions about 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Then if we agree, I can proceed for more layered suggestions for 1st paragraph, or otherwise alternate; as some of it correlates with the 2nd-4th following material ones. I also changed on the article in regards to the 1964 DR "bosses" to "management", as a usually better wording. But if you specifically wanna describe as the first, feel free to revert! So you're welcome to see my further suggestions for the "Lead". אומנות (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, best scores and number of wins:

  • Sole Portugal-2017 and Norway-2009 entries links: make an even further flow and tightens to focus on the highlight – the specific entry, as "Portugal's 2017 entry" single link. For my view, there's also no need for additional link to the contests and countries in ESC themselves at this context, anyway.
  • Pointing points: For those Portugal-2017 & Norway-2009. I thought from a week ago and let that settle with me; still think there's no value by no comparison. The points can be pointed under "Winners" or another chapter – along with next highest ones for an understanding of their amount-gap.
  • Voting system: "…in place since 2016…" = "previous…between 1975-2015." The 1st can be therefore dropped to be left with "under current", then the previous system period pointing.
  • Eventually all above 3 allow attaching Norway-2009 right after Portugal-2017 as both being the highlight here, then describing previous system+its period, for Norway achievement.
  • Glorious truly fantastic Ireland :-) Since the highlight manages to be demonstrated - via description of most victories including 4 most tightest wins - So, no need to specify those 4 years, as the other 3 wins (1970, 1980, 1987) and other specific years for other stuff which we removed and can be expanded upon under the chapters like "Winners". Also "with seven wins in total": "In total" repeats "most wins" intention. And, just pointing "Seven" enables moving "wins" to "four wins" instead of repeating "victories" twice. Not that repeating same word is that terrible, but gives a richer vocabulary feel, which I also see you always aim for.
  • 4th paragraph: Since we include best selling singers, worth to point 2 notable singles. Especially "Nel blu di pinto di blu" which exceeded 22 million!! copies as truly within the top 20 or even 10 best selling of all time. Even though it's from all versions of different singers combined, still it relates to this Eurovision song. And "Save Your Kisses for Me".
  • See my last 3 edits - "management", 3rd paragraph proposals, and self revert of for the last. Thanks! :-) אומנות (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks! And I appreciate your comments once again! Responses below:
* Personally I feel that explaining highest scoring winners like "Portugal's 2017 entry" to be a bit clunky, and I feel that the text at the minute has a better flow to it. I do see your point when it comes to including the points total, and that without a comparison as seen in the "Winners" article it does feel like including that does lack value; same goes for including Norway's win under the old system for the same reasons. I'll have a think about how best to describe this, as it might need a bit of an overhaul to give it more value.
* Yep I see your point with spelling out the years for Ireland's streak, and that putting just the decade is probably a better fit for the lead; this information is already included in the "Winners" section of the article too to be fair, so we're just repeating ourselves in the lead.
* I think maybe adding specific songs to the lead might go too far beyond what should be the scope of the lead section, but definitely worth including "Volare" in the "winning songs" section (even if it's not a winner but thanks for highlighting that one to me, will try and write something about non-winning hits! :-) )
Definitely if there's anything else you'd like to comment on then please go ahead! (Might be easiest for other sections to put it in the section below to make it easier to see everything at once! :-) ) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Thanks for your quick attentions and implementing some of my suggestions, considering my comments, and your fantastic, and dedicated work on the article! Sure I'm discussing just lead stuff here, but would post other potential stuff at page-bottom, and as I have detailed comments for individual chapters, will put under individual headers. :-)
  • Good call about removing Norway-2009, and I don't think you should bother explaining other highest scorers value here, if you meant for the lead. I questioned Norway's 2009 value, too. I'm with you on that. The current system produced the highest scorer ever anyway, and there were several voting systems with other points percentages records, anyway.
  • In relation to above, I focus on shortening current lead stuff, before I, personally, advice with you and others about adding stuff. But at this chance, it's worth pointing how many voting methods occurred (without periods) in the lead, and perhaps explain current method. With that I ask: is there a need to also point "since 2016", if only current system highest-scorer is introduced? For example: To date the contest has changed its voting method eight times. Under the current system, adding up points from the public and the juries(?), the highest scoring song is..." (so without "since 2016", and gave 8 as an example, didn't check how many methods).
  • "Portugal's 2017 entry" - Do you mean feels bit clunky cause all 3 words linked? Cause we can link just 2017 entry, and remove "the 2017 contest" which is implied already. Even just linking "Amar pelos dois" instead! The "Portugal's" attachment-phrasing is anyway left under current version.
  • Regardless of text, I feel its further heavier to link 4 times now, for: Portugal in contest, Portugal 2017, song itself, and feel its unrelated to link 2017 contest; that "Amar Pelos Dois" is the attraction, maybe also Portugal-2017 article link. With that I do agree that now when you only address this song (without Norway-2009), it's worth pointing and link the song's name.
  • And I'm sorry but I also don't see the need to add back Portugal's singer & songwriter. Though I understand now its a stand alone (without Norway), to me song's name is sufficient. If that's also to do with extending back the paragraph - anyway you're going to add a lot of stuff to the lead and this paragraph. Same goes for Ireland's victories, you now added the kind of superlative "in the contest's history" (after "most victories"), which is understandable from the context. My opinion in general is to avoid "in the contest" phrases which I see repeating a lot in articles.
  • Also for Ireland, I refer to the actual article - "with seven wins, including four times". I don't know if you still consider here, so I'm pointing again with relation to the actual article. For what I wrote (that "Seven" already indicates "in total victories" and enables shortening and 4 "wins" instead "victories" repetition) so please let me know your thoughts for this when you can. Oh and thanks for the "in 1990s"! I later noticed my "early" 1990s is indeed inaccurate cause of 1996 win (late 1990s) but didn't have energy to edit again... Glad we agree here and thanks for implementing that. :-)
  • I do feel that pointing "Volare" shouldn't be considered beyond the lead scope, since it's equivalent to point some few best selling artists and "Amar pelos dois", as you greatly did. But since its songs and not artists, let alone a best selling via combined sales of many different artists, I'm on board if you wanna keep it outside the lead. And yeah, I forgot to point before that "Volare" and other non-winning songs benefit to be added under chapters. Great work on adding Volare too within the article!!
  • It's important for me to stress - I don't mean to nit-pick and burden. I sincerely comment all this cause I wanna help you the best way I can think of, and for stuff I'm not sure I got your view on, and as I have fun sharing my detailed thoughts precisely on this polishing stuff, when someone open minded as yourself do this and I can advice and express from the side. :-) אומנות (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: I do have total faith that your comments and suggestions are meant to help improve the article, so they're always welcome with me! Yes I added "Amar pelos dois" back in mostly to bulk up that sentence, because I felt that it seemed to trail off without it. Right now I am starting to think we should potentially remove that entire paragraph altogether now (including Ireland as the most wins), since as you mentioned I have included quite a few instances where I've kinda repeated the same theme in a sentence in order to bulk it out. It might make more sense for that paragraph to close out the "Origins and history" section of the article instead, but let me have a think on it some more.
Going back to "Portugal's 2017 entry", I see what you mean about trying to make things more succinct, but my concern isn't with the links but the actual words: for me it sounds a bit too condensed, as if you're trying to push the sentence in to reduce the amount of words, at the expense of the natural flow. Again this is just my opinion, but I feel "Portugal's entry at the 2017 contest" just sounds better to my ear.
I think my concern with including "Volare" in the lead is principally about the potential exponential expansion scope, as in if you add that song, how many other songs would warrant inclusion, which might then make that paragraph just continue on endlessly. "Volare" is definitely a great example of a song from the contest that went on to great success outside of the contest, but with 1,500+ songs in the history of the contest, how do you define which ones warrant inclusion in the lead? Those artists I included came straight from the best-selling music artists section, and I could only see those 4 artists in the list so it made more sense to focus on those.
Hope this explains my thoughts better. Please to shout if you have any questions. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Thank you for understanding, it's not for granted on Wikipedia that someone takes so many thoughts and small wording comments always in good spirit. And to know I can keep freely discussing everything and think along with you in fun spirit, so really thank you!
  • Yep I also started questioning current highest-scoring lead necessity, following your Norway removal, per several voting methods, which come and go. Under "History"/"Winners"/"Format" we can even add all several methods' highest scoring songs / percentage! I also edited/expended info in 1956 ESC about percentage assumptions for the winner to the assumed voting method of it! :-) We will also avoid "current"-touch in the lead (even if more of a longer-lasting record). Was afraid raising this to not complicate things. But I support you on removing Portugal from the lead!
  • Ireland - I will first say it's much more impressive as all time record, compared to Portugal's "under specific system". But if after you'll think more, you still feel strongly about removing it from the lead, I can be fine with that, from a point of Ireland's record also bound to change, maybe, someday, and by that touching "current". So these 2 sides consideration maybe help you decide...
  • Thanks for extending your thoughts for "Portugal's 2017 entry" for me. I suggested for shortening, but based on my view for sufficient "2017 entry" instead of the already implied "the contest". If you're bothered by the "Portugal's 2017 entry" ordering, I just make this final suggestion: "Portugal's entry in 2017". Keeping same non-condense wording order (as you explained), and minus "the contest"? If you still prefer otherwise, I now at least came to full conclusion and of course respect your stand. I will just advice to not use it several times in a paragraph as well as "in the contest's history" for Ireland. Especially if you meant the last is to extend the paragraph, as you'll add more/instead-material here. I see in general a lot "in the x contest" like on "Other countries" sections on annual articles, so that's why it was also important for me to air it here. :)
  • Also if under a chapter, not in the lead, and further if for other voting methods' highest-scorers: What do you think eventually about delinking from those 4 Portugal/other scorers references, even if you keep same wording? I still think under a chapter its best to link just those songs names. I also still support without pointing singer/songwriters for those under a chapter.
  • Best selling - I agree. What I pointed, "Volare" and UK's 1976 "Kisses", was all I meant. :-) I'm quite sure those 2 (maybe 2-3 more ESC songs) managed more than around 5-millions copies sales. That's the standard I based on, similar to the 4 singers mentioned. I thought of even just mentioning "Volare" and point in the lead it's at the top 10 best selling songs ever (!) I now checked again to refresh my memory, and its supposed to be the 6th best selling song (not single though) of all time! Its not mentioned at "best selling singles" article cause of its combined different versions sales. And for this reason, that you address "best selling singles" (and not songs), I understand if you don't want to mention any songs including "Volare" in the lead. :-) אומנות (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks! I've made a few edits to the lead now, removing Portugal as highest scoring winner and instead including Germany as the most frequest participant, a feat which I feel is more long-term than the voting system, especially since it's only 4 years old! Will have a think about how we might want to include records like highest scoring winners elsewhere in the article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow @Sims2aholic8:... The move of active and associate members to is precisely what I wanted to bring after discussing the 3rd-4th paragraph; you dramatically progressed me now too with my more layered planned offers for the opening info, also rearranging some material according to the chapters order. And now indeed the 3rd paragraph mostly transmits "Format", after the 2nd corresponds to "History". And wow... good call about Germany, as another even more stable kind of presence-"record". That's exactly the kind of stuff that should be added here! And among the many stuff you will keep add to the lead.
  • And please don't kill me... again what you did is great to me too but in regards to "the contest" term, but unlike with Portugal which I understood, I wanna show clearer separate-sentence additions. Mostly 4th paragraph, anyway starts with "Performing at the Eurovision Song Contest" then repeats "the contest" twice. There's no need. For 3rd paragraph, passes better now, as first time & encapsulating both Germany+Ireland; thanks for removing "in the contest's history". Still don't think it's necessary here, but mostly 4th paragraph already introducing "at the contest". I'm sure it won't stand in the way of passing "FA" and maybe the reviewer will even like it won't care. Just wanted to get to the bottom, and make a draft edit so you see how it looks. Now I'll be okay with whatever you choose.
  • Celine Dion before ABBA - I always liked to follow those best selling singles and articles myself! Now following our talks looked again and Celine has about 173 million certified - as well as more claimed - sales, compared to ABBA (~60 million). You placed ABBA first cause its associated with the most popular song of the contest? Cause anyway the lead here address their outside success and not popularity within the contest, and as you ordered Julio and Olivia according to descending sales, to me Celine should be first. Great work again, now with Germany! :) אומנות (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@אומנות: Hey, thanks for your edits to the lead! I just wanted to explain my reasoning for bringing back the previous version here, didn't want to just revert back without explaining myself. Hope you understand!

  • I can see why you'd like to call the contest "principally European", however it conflicts a little in my mind of how the contest is in real life: although the participants are primarily representing European countries, the broadcast of it has been and is worldwide, including the Americas, Asia, Africa and over the internet, so I think calling the contest a European contest is really limiting its scope. That's why I think the current wording of international contest and European contest works better.
  • While I feel the Eurovision network is an important facet of the contest, its history etc., personal preference I feel it just works better within the second sentence, especially once we describe the contest as in my comment above. Describing the contest first as a song contest (with participants and songs) and then a television show (via the networks) I think also works best.
  • I also feel trying to get active/associate members into the first paragraph might be a bit "too much, too soon"? We don't want to overwhelm the reader with too much information too early on is my thinking, so I think including a reference in the 3rd paragraph is a better fit.
  • While I appreciate where you are coming from with wanting to include the growth of the contest, relegation and qualifiers in the lead, again it's a little bit like above with "too much, too soon". I feel the lead should be for a general overview of the contest, and those sort of details are maybe too in-depth for a casual reader at that stage in the article and are better served by being covered in other sections. I think the history section covers a lot of this as well, so it is covered quite early on in the article.

Once again, all these points are personal preferences, and happy to discuss further here, and happy to get further views from other users if necessary. Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sims2aholic8: I will explain my overall lead approach so maybe we agree on some aspects and come up with slight different ways, if possible.

  • "Primarily European" – as we grasped few outside-Europe participants and was in article. Now that you bring broadcast: I say open-definition is about content, event fill-meaning. International isn't understandable here for airing. Like defining national-Italian Sanremo, east-European 1993-relegation; despite other countries stations + web-streams, which is anyway beneath as – external additional lead scope. So "international"+"Primarily European" opening reads as "participants" inner-ambivalence. Also it therefore contradicts what you said about describing first as contest and later as television show, precisely since "international" (for broadcast) appears at very opening.
  • Networking at very opening perfectly links contest's-name as the medium of then pointed organizer-EBU + more highlight of contest's enabling-reasoning, as chapter's programming exchange-idea. In turn, 1st paragraph focus direct link: "submit "-"vote" actions; instead of "…submit…to be performed on TV & radio, transmitted to broadcasters via…", also reads somewhat tangled & repeats "countries' "songs"/"EBU's" we both expressed we wanna avoid.
  • So EBU tucked in between international and primarily seems cut-in and as within a dual participants explanation, as well the networks between song and vote; instead of focusing on medium+organizer then countries actions.
  • I also deliberated, and want to explain, that I like most to leave an opening definition as its own small paragraph "logline" to then "synopsis" for rest of the lead. Logline as for the contest's name + network + organizer. And thought to amalgamate the "Each country submit and votes…" as into the 3rd paragraph's EBU members opening. Eventually I decided to edit this into 1st paragraph. And still, 3rd paragraph points the abundantly clear "eligible to participate", after active and associate-"invited" ; = "eligible".
  • We can think, if readers wanna know via a brief lead-reference that there are chapters about relegations ahead; Further – for readers only looking at the lead as summary function and don't wanna further read even to the 1st History chapter – will they like to know the contest dramatically grew to warrant relegations? Will they ask themselves "how come all 52 countries participate"; is it all in 1 evening or how else? (As indeed 40+ participate every year). To me trying to think as a reader, the answer to these is yes.
  • And I feel an FA reviewer will touch that, more so will say in general that the lead needs more attention to the varied chapters. The current "52 participants"+2 countries records (Ireland, Germany), only touches "Participation"-pointing aspect while neglecting "History", "Format", "Expansion". Mostly, as we point 2 specific countries, I don't see why inclusive relegation procedures (even just pointing "relegation" to increasing newcomers) is too much in the lead.
  • For this, I tried another edit in the article with further general-brief relegation description, which still makes it clear there is a process to accommodate all participants in one year's edition. If you still sees it as also too much, then revert.
  • Ultimately, I see the lead as a provider of attaching what's related with as less wording/alternative repetitions as possible, as well highlights of all following chapters within a still short to medium 3-4 lead paragraphs. That is per info which is considered – to begin with – as warranting its own chapter. Let alone the appearance of relegation procedures on several chapters. And the reason the 1st thing popped for me to add to the lead, is mainly thanks to your great work of "Expansion" besides more chapters dealing with this, which you also extended. :-) And as the minor-general 3rd opinion also to add other aspects to the lead.
  • I do understand your thinking, as a reader and worker on the whole article, that everything appears later on. But I consider mostly readers who only look at the lead then also think about the possibilities of the FA reviewer looking at a summary function, and then again anyway my lead feedback as a reader – which stems from your good "Expansion" "Format" chapters extension. If you still completely disagree with me, I respect that and as always you can revert also my 2nd further brief edition of relegation I now added. While I also think it should be longer avtually to specify semis, televised and predetermined relegation procedures. Other than that I won't attempt to add anything to the lead if you still feel strongly against extending it.
  • I also reshaped the footnotes which I worked on my computer, following your preference to keep as such and as I showed examples on the talk, for taking advantage to shorten and simplify further, based on their reliance by pointing to/from already clear details on "Participants" table. And we only talked about that you like to keep as footnotes. So, hope you like that, or slightly tweak if you find even better ways. Anyway, those were almost all the stuff I worked on my computer which I wanted to edit.
  • So now I could share my deepest lead-thoughts, what I think we should ask about the common reader, FA reviewer, and my personal ordering preference, with also detailing for healthy communication that I understand if you may still disagree with my current edits.

אומנות (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@אומנות: Thanks for your comments above and for your further edits. I've rephrased some of what you added earlier today, and have retained the inclusion of the relegation and semis in the lead as well, which hopefully is a good compromise solution.
I do understand what you mean about the "international" vs. "primarily European" comparison. I feel that the present wording works a bit better, as I believe it balances between the contest and broadcast elements: as in primarily European participant countries in an international contest that is broadcast worldwide. That and I feel even just "Eurovision" as a name would give most readers a sense that it's European in origin.
I also took a stab at rewording the "participants" footnotes, hopefully to include a lot of what you saw and wanted to condense down. Again hopefully this works well as a compromise position.
Please do add any further comments you may have, happy to accommodate where I can. :-) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8:, Thanks, I appreciate the flexibility, for which I shortened your good explanation, also as I actually agree with you when to avoid more prolong references in the lead and alternate repeating ways, though great for chapters and I'm impressed from your overall writing. We are generally on the same page, why I earlier today shortened further to what I thought would most accommodate your approach of "too much too soon" while still show the reader/FA in general reference by pointing relegation. Especially people just want to read a quick summary for different chapters. I shortened stuff which technically seem already clear, like "relegation = reduce the number... and also keeps clearance by the 2000s semis. Overall I like that you re-added clearly about the 1990s for relegations and 2000s for semis, and your phrase of "one evening". And I do think this overall reference will be much better with an FA reviewer as well.
I understand and appreciate you want to highlight the contest worldwide broadcast prestige, it's just to me already greatly highlighted as an external-extra phenomena at the lead's continuation, as well my overall cut-in "EBU" then separately "Network" personal preference problem. But also technically, my main reservation leans on that "international" at the very opening isn't understandable as broadcast since its expected to define the content-participants of the event itself, so "Primarily European" afterwards looks as though alternate-repetitive to describe international participants. To sharpen further - it seems understandable only if you clarify " an internationally broadcast song competition, organized by the EBU, and featuring primarily European countries". But to me it's still like defining at the opening of Sanremo " a festival broadcast in Europe/internationally, organized by RAI, featuring Italian singers" instead of saying "National Italian festival" and later talk about its broadcast elsewhere. So I'm sorry but for me it just doesn't sit well. I will have to stay in disagreement about this. Anyway I don't think it can be a problem for FA and apparently not to others since that stuck in the lead for a long time, but I do appreciate your approach to to international.
For the footnotes - Yeah the main thing for me for Germany, is to keep it simple without repeating "in 1990" " in all contest", "but on one contest", so I did manage to achieve that although I also like your version as also keeping clear of repetitions. I did however also did that for a simple sentence without brackets also to standardize as the Yugoslavia's and Macedonia's footnotes. Do you see a need for the brackets for the years or can we remove those? Other than that, I also thought if "German reunification" is a must but seemed like a long-accepted term so didn't wanna mess with that. So I like you removed that and based on that made this different footnote for Germany. :-) אומנות (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Final stuff I wanna discuss, for the current lead, which I thought of already how can be added and would love to edit but like to know if you see feat.
  • From above, I like to know what you think for removing the brackets from Germany's footnote as we made simpler more flowing phrasing, and already a sided-footnote form, and to match the other footnotes regularly pointing countries names.
  • 2nd-3rd-4th paragraphs rearrangements with turning them to 2 paragraphs. That's by swapping "active and associate 52 participants...Ireland's wins" info to 2nd paragraph while "one of the longest running programmes...600 million viewers" to the very end. This matches order of "History"-"Format"-"Participation"-"Expansion" lead-info we added. Broadcasting and viewing alongside and after best selling artists+songs gives it one more highlight as you like by finishing the lead, which also serves the lead's highest note finish of overall viewing prestige alongside best sales. Annual editions articles leads also finish with this, according to chapters order. Talking about other countries at the end, also why I see the broadcast as an extra, bonus. Also and mostly, technically in this article, corresponds to the last chapters dealing with overall broadcast and viewers critiques and public perceptions. And I also think in general the lead should be in same chapters order as well think, that FA includes that.
  • Within the broadcasting lead info - I can also remove specific other countries broadcasting which are anyway pointed the same way under the chapter. This enables a flowing sentences for then also starting with "one of the longest annual running programmes" while the record for "longest annual international music competition" remains at 2nd paragraph after "History" aspect for pointing its run from 1956. So in new 3rd paragraph - start with "one of the longest running", to online broadcast since 2000 and finish in same flow with the overall 100 to 600 million viewers.
  • About Germany, wanted to say for sometime but I talked first on other stuff: it actually participated in all editions, and now with the relegation info even simpler to highlight it as the only country to do so, and can add "including submission to one relegation round". This enables leaving UK info as the longest having televised appearance. Or to just say Germany is the only country to participate in all editions and leave its 1996 submission and Uk consecutive appearance for the detailed chapters. אומנות (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Now I see you added "67 winners to the lead". To me that's like Netherlands 2019 as it's bound to change every year. Another thing in regards to Ireland - remember you said maybe its wins record too much for the lead? I think and now see myself that maybe that's also to do with pointing its 4 tight wins, which is maybe better to be pointed as is already within the chapter/s. All this eventually enables further briefer mention to Germany is competing in all editions, Ireland just pointing its most-7 wins, and perhaps leaving UK or remove.
And in general - Controversy, politics brief mention and in principal everything making a 1-level chapter is best summarized in the lead as well, possibly with creating a 4th paragraph for that, if my above suggestions are okay with you and I can edit the current lead to overall 3 paragraphs, from 2-3-4 turning to 2 ones. אומנות (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks again for your great insights! I've gone ahead and included a bunch of them already, as I do agree with you on a lot of these.
  • I reformatted the Germany footnote, please do feel free to take a stab as well if you see any further room for improvement.
  • I went ahead and condensed and reformatted the lead as you described; wasn't aware that the lead was supposed to align with the structure, but it does make sense! Again, please do feel free to expand upon this if you wish. I would be keen to see what you would like to include in the lead from the "controversies" section, so please do add another paragraph if you feel up for it.
  • Yes I see your point for not including the 67 songs, I reintroduced that mostly to expand that sentence, since by adding UK appearances it felt a little broken off. Removing the UK reference has fixed that so no need to include it now.
  • For the Germany 1996 entry, I would be reticent to include this in the lead, mostly given that the EBU doesn't consider it a proper German entry and it's not included in the participating songs for the country on the Eurovision website (see here). I think it is a valid point that is covered in the "Expansion" section, and even though Germany has entered every contest they've not participated at every live event, so I think adding that caveat to the lead would be slightly leaning out of scope.
Please do reach out if you have any other questions, and please feel free to edit the article as you see fit; Be bold and all that! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Participation and HistoryEdit

@Sims2aholic8: Hey, first, thank you back, for your earlier note! I now want to tell you, I noticed the current draft "Participation" which gave me quite few ideas. From yesterday I worked (on my computer) to minimize from both table+footnotes (as for West Germany, Yugoslavia...); while giving the add of a frame story which I think is always most interesting and swiping if can be done. Here, there is only one detail-factor (countries joining; and not variable complex details), so I came up with something to feat a paragraph flow.

I thought to wait some more days as I said I would, and, anyway, kept working-thinking. However I'm so-so finished with overall key-factors phrasing-strengths the way I think about this. Furthermore, only today I compared both draft + actual-article to realize you shortened those footnotes and noticed other paragraphed chapters somewhat touching countries who joined over the years. The first shows we both think alike about long in-body footnotes. :-) The second strengthens I think what I worked on, as well as something bigger I already thought yesterday - to eventually amalgamate "Participation" onto "Origins and History"... In turn (although not the main reason), this can also further shape the lead paragraphs in correspondence to the chapters order and fewer ones, once those are finalized.

So that I can keep up and express stuff closer to the right momentum, I realized it will be much easier, for anyone, if I edit the draft which will then show by itself "difference between revisions" (instead of showing ideas alongside erased text here); enable me several edits for different suggestions visuals; revert myself to keep the draft intact; and linking those here with small shorter explanations here. Is that okay with you? אומנות (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@אומנות: Hi! Glad to hear that we're on the same page with some of your thoughts! Happy to discuss how we best merge some of the sections, so yes if you want to go ahead and edit the draft to be able to show your edits then go ahead! I had been thinking that the "origins" section could be reduced quite a bit if we move a lot of what is there into the actual History of the Eurovision Song Contest article, which would bulk that out and put that into a better place, which keeping a shorter overview of the highlights on the main article. A lot of what I am doing at the minute is just getting ideas and words out of my head and onto the page, and then I plan to read through and edit as I go, but definitely if you have ideas for sections where I'm mostly finished I'd definitely like to hear them! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Yeah I just started feeling bit uncomfortable and that will be more complicated for me discussing some stuff later on, as I see you keep working hard, along with adding to "Expansion of the contest". Though, my problem isn't with that, I think it looks overall great from my brief browsing on that one. Glad I catch up with you mainly before serious "Participation" reworking, as the "Expansion" and "History" rub some same angle of "Participation". And, even if you and others agree with me, of course I didn't want to make you rework more than what you already work on...
In this regards, I do like your direction of shortening "Origins and History". A) As I also thought the same, mainly for the many events mentioned as the Eurovision exchange programmes in the early 1950s. B) Then even easier to place stuff from "Participation" onto that. + Some other stuff I thought of moving from "Participation" to the relatively short "Format" as well, but I will get to that later. I will keep tweaking my work on my computer a bit; and explain along with editing the draft tomorrow (as its very late here; for you probably too, 2 hours after me I think). And again I will revert so it won't complicate all your progressing work, then link them here which will enable revisions differences. Thanks, and good night! אומנות (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: my explanations and linked examples under draft-"Participation", including for your shortened cut-punctuated footnotes. I understand and agree they are more proper for this purpose, but from a paragraph suggestion for both this and the joiners-table, I wanna suggest for another way:
Footnotes: From "until 1990 ; East Germany never...", bracketed years+explanations. I used for example a more epitomizing "except for 1976" cancelling "this name" and "that for all others", and enables East Germany reference finish. More Yugoslavia flow - thanks to your shortening, and if I understand 1992 status. I do think if accepted though - worth reinserting 2003-2004-2007 Serbia-Montenegro reincarnations. Also framed: "Four countries...varying terms" which nicely corresponds to more such details. Further, as Australia mentioned at other chapters and my below table-replacement, can even remove, addressing just shifting status-names. My edit with Australia and without. Another option - as individual explanations on the map image + those countries colored/striped.
Table paragraph: Framed by decades emphasizing joiners-numbers + geography. Turns as very interesting periodical contrasts, especially 1990-2000s showcasing "...biggest amount... eleven, fifteen..." joining while 2010s "only one...albeit unprecedented" Australia's case. Other stuff, I didn't noticed before: 1950s kept classic-Europe with Nordic touch, while early 1960s-1961 both Eastern/double-Iberian expansion, 1970s Mediterranean and double-Asia and 1980s reaching both EBU's western tips. To show two options, still bit unpolished - bullet points; my least favorite but still replaces table+flag-icons. And my favorite per 2 paragraphs emphasizing 1950s-1980s slow-joining to 1990s-2010s joining-amount and associate-members "makeover". See also on article, not just on the revisions difference.
The additional chapters "Expansion", "History" - pointing some joiners: However, my 1-2 paragraphs/bullet options can easily be incorporated onto existing "History" paragraphs which in themselves divided to early and later periods as my favorite option (as I noticed later, 3 before-last paragraphs on your current draft). If we go with this, "Participation" can still be a sub-header, benefiting a 1st division highlight and the map-image for "Origins-History" currently containing only paragraphs. The only other "Participation" angle - Broadcasting area definitions, can easily and should in my opinion be under the anyway short "Format". All this barely, if any, effects your "Expansion" work which goes to details about participation rules. Finally... here are my edits, next to existing general-touching paragraphs at this chapter for amalgamation consideration. And I returned to the way the draft looks under your last edit. Thanks for all your required attention to my layered somewhat situation-complicating edits and thoughts. :) אומנות (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks, looking through your edits now and there are some interesting things I can see that you're trying to include. I'll publish my responses below. Like I said previously, at the moment I'm just trying to get ideas onto the page, so everything I'm doing is subject to edits and change, but given what you've shown so far, here are my thoughts.
Edits 1 and 2: I see what you are trying to accomplish here, but personally I think it feels a bit out of place and a bit bulky. Most of this information would surely be better placed on the country articles rather than on the Eurovision mainpage, since in my opinion this should be an overview of the contest as a whole rather than the full ins and outs of each country's history. I totally see your point about including SCG as part of Yugoslavia note, but as for expanding this into a full paragragh I have reservations.
Edits 3 and 4: I feel that most of what you've included in these paragraohs is already included in the table of participating countries, so in fact this would only be repeating what is already there but just expanding upon the geographies of each country. In particular for Edit 3, this would also I believe go against standard Wikipedia style guidelines on when to use bullet point lists (see Wikipedia:List dos and don'ts).
For Edit 5, although I get where you are coming from with the bolding of the opening of the lines, I feel that this violates MOS:NOBOLD, so I wouldn't recommend it. I don't think bolding should ever be used for more than a few words personally, as otherwise I feel it makes the page look rather "in your face" almost.
As I said previously, a lot of what is currently in the "origins and history" section I will most likely move into the History article, so that will be reduced substantially. Sorry I couldn't agree with you more on this. If you have any questions about my comments then please do reply. Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to add everything to this article, then we can break things off into the sub-articles if need be. Pretend they don't exist. I have a feeling there will be a reduction the quantity of offshoot articles at some point anyway. Grk1011 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: of course I appreciate your thoughts and kindness regardless if you disagree, on anything. :-) But, I think we got to few fundamental misunderstandings. Most important for me - to understand when to post: I'm sorry I didn't understand you prefer discussing chapters only after you initially-finished. I based on your project talk page message inviting ideas-feedback already when you opened the draft and also can't know when exactly you initially finish something. Like, I saw you extensively rephrased/added more to "Expansion" chapter, in stages over days, which looks great BTW! And that you shortened those "Participation" footnotes and that you didn't keep working specifically on that - for which I had a different idea, and regardless of your "History" removals plan. So I didn't want causing you keep rephrasing/expanding, then me coming with all these rearranging/editing a-new suggestions. I thought that may upset and cause you redundant efforts, that's why I even hurried to write you today, but now I understand and sorry :) ... So, when you finish first-stage, can you open a section here for specific/general feedback? I'll of course then be happy to keep try help. :-)

Clarifying my proposals stuff:

  • The status is only 3 name-shifting countries - Germany, Yugoslavia, North Macedonia and maybe Australia here too, according and instead of their footnotes which you shortened from the actual article so this info already exists. *From the above - added material about Serbia and Montenegro still makes an overall few-sentences paragraph - for all those 3/4 countries combined which also briefly reflects their overall participation status through the years, according to this general article. Here is what I meant for reinserting more to these 1st paragraph: "...reconstituted itself as Serbia and Montenegro and finally dissolved to the two separate states: Serbia and Montenegro". That's it. And my second+third paragraphs suggestion - for all countries joining by decades - already take care to show the years Serbia and/or Montenegro joined.
  • I meant paragraphs for countries joining by decades instead of the table, not in addition, just as the Germany-Yugoslavia-Macedonia paragraph, instead of the footnotes. Earlier I kept the table+footnotes on the draft because I wanted to give an easy option for you and others to compare my text to those two illustrations, as I tried my best describing what I mean on the comment above and on the edit summaries, sorry it didn't come out clear.
  • "Bullet points" - yeah I understand and thanks for the guidance here, anyway I'm all for 2 paragraphs division and don't like bullet here either; it was to show another option. But I therefore need to tell you that I also based that on the "Rules" appearing as long bullet points sentences (starting with "songs shouldn't exceed 3.5 minutes..."). So notice that when you copy/work on that from the actual-article as well, if its against Wikipedia's guidelines.
  • "Origins and History" - yeah, but I know there are already paragraphs pointing the seven countries who joined in 1956, and first Asian and African countries joining as geographical "landmarks" and such more, which I want to suggest taking advantage of. So even if you wanted to remove those chapters in the future, it's actually good we discussed these now for amalgamating my paragraphs precisely into those existing "Origins and History" 3 paragraphs which I earlier highlighted on the draft.
  • If on the other hand you thought about removing the first paragraphs which talk about Eurovision-ceremonies and background content - its anyway not relevant to the paragraphs I address here.
  • I also just randomly "bolded" the opening sentences of those 3 "History" paragraphs (albeit they started with pointing countries) - so you and others can easily find them and compare to my material beneath them. Didn't mean I want to bold them on the actual article. So, sorry for these confusions from my part and hope my suggestions are clearer now. אומנות (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC) :-)
@אומנות: Thanks for clarifying, I certainly didn't mean to discourage you from providing feedback as I definitely welcome ideas from all directions even when I'm formulating the article! I feel that with your ideas on explaining Germany/Yugoslavia/North Macedonia that it works better as footnotes; I think it's important information that should be on the article but because it's quite technical in nature I feel that expanding it into a full paragraph would read as a bit bulky and might not perhaps add any further value.
I also believe that including the list of participating countries by year of debut in a table is a better way of presenting this information, as it's a lot more visual and gives you a better overview of which countries debuted when, without having to read through a bunch of text to find the same information. What you contributed about geography and decades was really good, and it's certainly something I've tried to include in the "Expansion" section, but it could be that a lot of what you created might better fit there, so expanding that section to include expansion of the contest between the 60s and 80s.
I hope this clarifies what my position is on these points, and overall I think your thoughts are really valuable and I'll certainly work to include them. I will certainly be looking for thoughts and contributions from WikiProject:Eurovision members once I've completed all sections of the article! Of course in the meantime if you have anything further, then please do let me know! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: that's okay, really! :-) ! I wasn't sure if sooner or later is easier for you to get feedback and discuss big ideas, I saw advantages and shortages to both myself. Admittedly, I preferred not to wait, also when, hopefully, I may soon go back to work, and when you finish I may precisely would unfortunately for me, have less time here. :-( As I see for many years and specifically these last days, that you are very kind and communicative, I'm enthusiast at this chance to express ideas for you. Eventually the Participation table+footnotes was the only big thing I saw you started working on, where I thought of a different direction. Now when I see you fully understand my replacement and presentations intentions for that, and still see otherwise, I'm completely fine of course if you disagree and understand your stand, as well as know that you keep working on this after we discussed different options. For now I just remind the option of footnotes as descriptions within the map image with coloring the countries which I suggested in an earlier comment, as I still really dislike this still relatively big inner-article footnotes (though I didn't draft such example) but... we'll talk when you finish. I will later today go back to post under "Lead" for some smaller ideas which are anyway current stuff you already polish, peanuts stuff - easier to discuss. For "Participation" & everything bigger I may have in regards to amalgamations/rearranging - I will gladly look for when you're ready. Thank you for your clarifications and further encouraging message! אומנות (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


Thoughts on the 1964 fire? Clearly you have more sources at your disposal than I right now, so it might be worth checking out some of these claims. Grk1011 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Interesting thought, I'd never heard of this but certainly seems plausible. Most of the sources I have available (the official website, "Songs for Europe") typically mention a fire as the cause, but the language they use is never particularly clear-cut, so it could be one of those cases of "if someone says something enough times it becomes fact". I'd certainly say we should include this new bit of info on the article, potentially appending the current sentence to include this so that all possibilities are covered. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I've now updated the "Archive status" section to include this (another Danish source mentioned that it could've been wiped, so included that report as well). Thoughts on language/structure used? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
What you wrote works, though it needs a quick copy edit. The first sentence makes it seem like the television sets were lost over time though lol. Grk1011 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, reading back on it I see what you mean lol! Will fix :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft ready for reviewEdit

Hi all. Think I've got the draft into a good state now, so hoping I could get a couple of reviews and comments on where it's at right now. Please do let me know if there's anything you'd like to see different, format or layout changes, anything that I've missed that you believe should be added, and any other comments would be amazing! Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks amazing! I really appreciate all the effort you've put into it! I've gotten about half way through and have the following comments:
  • Lead: "longest-running annual international television contest" - makes it sound like a "television contest" when it's a song contest? Also need to add a brief summary of some of the other sections of the article, such as criticism and controversy, cultural influence, and spin-offs.
  • Hosting: Do we need a TBD in the table or can the 2021 row be added when the information is known? The first mention of "Big Five" was in the rehearsals and press conference section. Where else could it be introduced that is more fitting?
I plan to continue reading through within the next day or so. Grk1011 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much! It's been hard work but feels really amazing to see the progress I've in the past 2 weeks! Comments on your suggestions below:
  • I've modified the lead to change the Guinness reference to "longest-running annual international televised music competition", which brings it closer to the actual record, but bit concerned it might be a bit wordy. Any thoughts?
  • Agreed that the 2021 slogan "TBD" entry isn't needed at this moment, and can be added in again when it is announced.
  • I've expanded the "Format" section to include more info on the shows, to accommodate a new "Big Five" reference, and have also expanded on how the contest is financed. This seems like the most logical area to include the "Big Five" for the first time; could possibly see it maybe in the "Origins and history" section too, but given my thought on cutting and shifting a lot of the contests there into the "History" article perhaps not.
I will definitely take a read through again to see where I could expand on summary paragraphs on some sections. Definitely appreciate any more suggestions you have in the coming days! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's ready to be peer reviewed before a Featured Article nomination. Honestly I would just skip Good Article since that would just basically be another peer review in the grand scheme of things, though less helpful since they're only looked at by one reviewer. Some of the GAs we have don't really have FA in their future, but we know want this article to be a Featured Article again. Grk1011 (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
That's good to hear! I'll move the article over to the mainspace now, attempt to get a history merge of my edits too (which may not work, going by the guide but may as well try!), and put it forward for FA review. Gonna be offline for a few days visiting family but will continue to make minor tweaks as and when over the next couple of weeks! Thanks for your help with suggestions and first review, it's been really helpful and great working with you again! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, will put forward for FA when I'm back! :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Awesome! I wonder if the Peer Review process might be a good idea before FA? That way you could receive some feedback on the article as a whole in terms of completeness, but also some input on what content should be moved to the sub-pages. Grk1011 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that's a good idea! Will do that now this evening and continue to make further tweaks in the meantime, try to incorporate some of the other suggestions I've received. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Origins and HistoryEdit

@Sims2aholic8: Hi, I can now approach this chapter; I'v decided to remove few events as you see, as I think such can instead be described in general as the nature of Eurovision experiments and programming, while I left one notable example for FIFA; also still without pointing specific year and Swiss location when the first is also understandable from the paragraph and the following paragraph "Summer Season" and then to 1955 contexts. And as in general, I suggest removing info such as hotels, cities; just pointing a country and/or instead of a city to match everything as anyway country relates to broadcaster handling the meeting while city could had been another. Also some vice presidents names and maybe further to few broadcasters presidents, unless they progressed something notable in direct relation to the contest and not just for "Eurovision" and networking. Overall I see value in all paragraphs you extended, but just these kind of details I mentioned to shorten which are within them; as more of non-directly related to understand the contest's creation, especially if you add this info to the "History of the Contest" separate article, these are better there. There's another paragraph with some problematic sourced facts, and details, also not something complicated, but first just this. אומנות (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify I prefer you do it, as you'll know better in regards to this rest stuff of hotels, presidents/vice, and cities removals - in relation to what you plan to show on the contest's history dedicated article. And as I also don't want to touch and trim too much of your material, especially in case you still prefer to present some of this stuff here and didn't think yet how to present them at the history article. אומנות (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@אומנות: Thanks again for your comments! I think that's a good point on removing some of the extraneous events from 1954, to streamline it a bit. These can certainly be moved over to the History article when I get round to redeveloping that out. This could again be more something for the History article, but I think keeping info on the meeting sites, i.e. the hotels, is quite important. I understand the need to streamline but I think giving the whole information on where these decisions were made in the early days of the contest is the sort of thing as an encyclopaedia should be included. However I'm sure a lot of this will transfer over, which is why I've not been touching this section too much. Finding the time between work and life to develop that article has been a bit more difficult over the past few weeks but I'm hoping to get some time this weekend to work on the History article. I do appreciate you holding back on editing this section for the time being and I'm sure that following this weekend your comments will be invaluable! :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Thank you too, and again for your last appreciation at lead above! Yeah I expected you won't get round the other article, and easier for me as gradually progress with you. I'm still not back to my job, and only have energy to this Wikipedia article. And for this chapter I'm not just holding back but also after you work it, I only write here, especially if you plan big-complex changes. I will also appreciate if you share, when you know if you plan removing complete sections? To me it's only those further specific following details I mentioned.
On "Origins-History" I like seeing about 90%; it concludes valuable relevant meetings and contest progress trademarks. I understand you mean to give specific and complete info, as perceiving as lacking to just state a country. But the broadcaster with his country alone already covers up what needs to be understand. Also some presidents happening to be managers at the time and working on advancements for the network in the pre-contest era. Unlike Marcel Bezencon working directly for the contest development (even an award named after him within it), for example. And, broadcasters' full titles. The reader here won't be bothered by not knowing those, as long as he understand the meetings managements and purpose for the sake of the network then leading to the contest creation. But I feel he can otherwise get bit distracted especially in this article covering much varied material. This info will be still noticeably shorter, as you say "streamlined", but I also mean I feel the above is insignificant here anyway, non ad-hock for the contest history and progress. And the hat-note refers already to the "History" article.
For example, the important info about a meeting in England with BBC for founding the network and in Italy with RAI for founding the contest, already serves the purpose; "Imperial" hotel in Turquoy and "Palazzo Corsini" in Rome, and vice presidents and BBC and RAI/RTF full names - these don't help understand it any better unless they had specific significance but then there would have been statements in regards to that. So I see removing this as serving better purpose of focus and relevance, for this article. There are also issues about Australia and as I wrote another paragraph with problematic details (and as once wrote overlapping "Participation") but wanted to rehash this first. And anyway I won't mind if you happen to remove those other stuff since I didn't raise as I think they should be removed.
BTW for "the" reasoning of only one cancelled edition, I understand what you mean, but it's still clear it's one. "the" looks as though it's already known, when it's just introduced; an unknown fact. So just my view here as per your reasoning I still think it should be "a" unless it's considered an inappropriate English, that's a different case. אומנות (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks for clarifying your comments! A lot of what you outline I agree with, and I plan to implement when I develop the History article further this weekend, particularly the names/locations information which is more relevant to a separate article. This section is very bloated currently, slightly on purpose just for getting ideas onto the page, so I'll definitely work on this further when it's all separated.
The "a" vs. "the" debate I understand where you're coming from with this, however for a number of reasons I think "the" is the better choice. It may come down to people reading things differently, as I don't read "the" in this context as meaning that it's an already established fact, and actually if anything I think putting it down as "the" also helps facilitate intrigue with the reader, raising questions such as "why was it cancelled?", "what happened in 2020?" which I don't think you get when you use "a". There is also a slight point to be made as well that, for me personally, "a cancelled 2020 edition" doesn't hit the ear right for me compared to "the cancelled 2020 edition", potentially because, in my mind, adding in the year makes it a more definite concept that just "a/one cancelled event" or something similar which is less defined; I wouldn't recommend removing the year from this in any case, given how recent it is and also for notability reasons. I'm not sure if this is just down to regional dialectal differences but it's how my mind/ear works in any case. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: Hi, I see, I thought you may plan to also already remove big chunks from the chapter here this weekend, while I think the skeleton and overall info here is very good minus those stuff + some slight (like 10% of this chapter) further info, as I removed other parades and sporting events specifications, happy you agreed with that. And happy of course to understand better you put the emphasize on locations at the History article, and if you happen to know or come across reasons why this specific cities and hotels/convention places were chosen, even better to enrich there, as well as giving justification to this parallel chapter as extended over there! About "the"-"a", okay no problem; at first I thought you may didn't notice or realized my reasoning for 1st introduction as you referred to definitive one-occurrence. I thought "a" may sound not proper English with just "weird to the ear" crossing my mind. I would still suggest something like "with the exception of one cancelled edition in 2020", but given your further reasoning and what you feel about intriguing the reader, I understand. So I'll wait for next week to describe the other stuff which I see can be removed from here as well as 2 problematic-untrue sourced "facts" + 1 such more on another chapter. Good luck, and have fun, and swift easy work, on the History article this weekend! :-) אומנות (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Eurovision Song Contest" page.