Talk:Eurovision Song Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Eurovision Song Contest is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Eurovision Song Contest is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This page is related to the WikiProject Eurovision. This Project is an attempt to enhance, organise, and standardise articles about the Eurovision Song Contest. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision.

Contents


[edit] Attitudes to the Contest

Thank you, whoever did the table -- I was dreading it! But let's be fair -- The Eurovision song contest is still taken seriously by lots of people...although I think it definitely gets campier by the year. I do have it on personal knowledge (oral history at work) that in the 50s and 60s in England, it really was a big deal -- and the songs submitted were chosen by popular vote -- the BBC played them and took polls! I still rate it better entertainment than the Oscars! JHK

The table is my work.

As to the serious/camp debate, the fact is that most of the acts tend towards MOR pop and have very little in common with music that music enthusiasts buy. Very few of the winning acts are heard from much again. Sometimes a country's act is not even from that country (Gina G and Celine Dion?) The political bias of the votes from the various countries is obvious. Finally, it's obvious that the Beeb doesn't take it seriously when they have a semi-inebriated Terry Wogan doing his commentary. Finally, from my personal perspective of an Australian looking in, it's an instant cure for the cultural cringe (how can we take seriously a continent with pop music this bad?) and a handy guide to how various European nations perceive each other :) --Robert Merkel

Robert, I'm glad to see someone mention the generate awfulitude (which is a perfectly cromulent word) of the Eurovision contest, but I'm curious as to why there's no mention of it on the page itself. It seems that a lot of people think the contest is full of terrible music, which should get a mention as a large (maybe even majority?) opinion.
The preceding unsigned comment was left by 69.140.0.112 at 10:57, 1 August 2006
Okay, three things: Firstly, this is an encyclopædia, and all material must be encyclopædic and verifiable. General statements such as "most British people think it's a joke" don't really belong in an encyclopædia. Ask yourself: would you expect to read that in the Britannica? Secondly, this is an international article - not just a British article. Wogan may have dragged the xenophobic British public perception along with him for many years, leading many to believe that the Contest is a joke, but that is not an opinion shared in all countries. It would be unencyclopædic to focus on "perception of the Contest in the UK" (ONE country), and not mention exactly how it is perceived in EVERY country in which it is broadcast. Such a list would be too long, and almost impossible to research; and definitely impossible to verify. Go on, you find some encyclopædia-worthy reference material which explains how the Contest is perceived by the Romanian public. Thirdly, there is a section which deals with criticism of the Contest - which is referenced. If you think the Contest is awful then you may have that opinion, but you can't just generalise like this in an encyclopædia article. You have to pick out specific things which you wish to criticise, and then give reasons - and references for them. The two major areas of criticism in the Contest are that people consider many of the entries bland, middle-of-the-road pop and think that the on-stage gimmicks are silly; and that the voting is perceived as all politically biased. Both of these points have been addressed - with references - in the article as it stands. What is your particular reason for calling it awful? Did you think that the 2006 Norwegian entry was boring, making you want to change channels? Do you remember the Bucks Fizz skirt rip, and laugh about it thinking it was a stupid gimmick? Do you think the voting is a ridiculous farce because it's all political? What else? If you think you can identify another specific area of critcism, and can explain it in an encyclopædic manner, with proper references, then please be my guest and include it into the article... or explain it properly here and I can write it in for you if you want. EuroSong talk 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's very early in the morning here, so don't expect my repsonse to be too coherent: 1) You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I'm British, I'm not. 2) Just because the wikipedia is an encyclopedia, doesn't mean it should eschew reporting on criticism--most movie/book/album articles have sections on critical response. I agree that wikipedia should not be a source for original criticism. 3) The existing criticism section is about the form of the contest and the type of music (unimaginative pop), without really touching on the quality of it. "Middle of the road" is not what I'd consider criticism. 4) By way of disclaimer: I have never actually watched the Eurovision Song Contests in their entirety--I have seen some performances from them however (like the GWAR-type band that recently won), and they were all cringe-inducingly bad. I get the impression that a lot of people watch the contest for the same reason they watch shows like American Idol, not for the quality of the performances or the love of competition, but because they enjoy seeing a lot of talentless people making an awful racket in front of millions of other people. But then again, English is the only language I can read, so maybe there are tons of Romanian websites praising the quality of the entries for the Eurovision Song Contests.
OK, sorry for presuming you were British :) Well my point still stands: if you want to introduce more criticism into the article, then it must be specific and have references. Just saying "I thought the 2006 winner was cringe-inducingly bad" is not encyclopædic. As a matter of fact I personally thought it was absolutely fabulous. So there we have it: two points of view. You should note that my POV is not noted in the article either; nowhere is it mentioned that songs have been prasied for their musical content. If you want to write about critical reception of the Contest, then it must be fair and balanced, giving both good and bad reviews... all suitably referenced. EuroSong talk 11:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a serious point here, which is not currently addressed in the article. In many countries the competition seems to be taken quite seriously, but this is not, on the whole, the case in the UK (and perhaps in Ireland - see the Father Ted episode, My Little Horse). The lack of seriousness is also evident in the presentational style of Terry Wogan, who seems to be somewhat of an institution in the UK's coverage - if you've seen this, you will understand immediately. I'm not sure how encyclopediac any references would have to be, but these two examples clearly indicate a less than serious public attitude to the whole shindig. It seems a serious omission in the article, to ignore the fact that for a significant number of its viewers, the contest is a gigantic joke, and enjoyed on that level! - Paul 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Paul. You do have a good point: attitudes to the Contest in various countries might be an interesting addition to the article. Do you fancy coming up with some suitable references, which mention the difference between how it is perceived in, say, Estonia and how it is in the UK? I do accept this point: it is a good one, and rightly deserves a mention in the article. However, it's all about references. I'm trying to get this recognised as a Featured Article, and the criteria are very strict - especially when it comes to references. Many FA candidates get rejected simply because there are statements made which are not suitably referenced. Fancy finding some, which are objectively, professionally written, and NPOV? (There are surely many places you can find British people trashing the Contest, but it's harder to find neutrally-objective, professionally-written references.) EuroSong talk 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to spoil the fun, but it is virtually impossible to create a section on "attitudes towards the contest" that would fulfill WP standards. The catch is that almost all references providing opinions on the contest will be inherently POV by themselves, so citing them would be replicating their POV. A NPOV section would list all major "attitudes" with sources, but it is virtually impossible to establish a complete list of such. ESC is not an especially controversial topic, so this section is not needed to make the coverage of the topic complete, and would rather raise concerns during the FA candidacy.
Please note that WP's role is first and foremost (well, in fact actually solely) to serve as an encyclopedia, informing the readers of the facts. Therefore, it is inherently lacking opinions and judgements on the subjects discussed - these are reserved for other types of media. On one hand, this might be seen as an imperfection, but on the other, it helps realize the tasks of an encyclopedia. Bravada, talk - 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Love the comment about Wogan. It's been obvious for some years now that (as far as the UK is concerned) the future hangs on the continued survival of Terry Wogan (67), who seems to be becoming more disillusioned with the show with every annual voting farce. The majority of British viewers are actually Wogan's fan base, and these will disappear as soon as Terry stops presenting the UK feed. It is telling that the BBC didn't even screen the big 50th anniversary bash in Copenhagen. A Eurovision without Wogan would likewise probably not be worth screening in the UK, and the contest would then lose one of its biggest paymasters. --ChrisR

[edit] Past contests and results

Perhaps add a table column for the writers of the winning songs? -- Tarquin

or even the venues? Another thing I could do it or someone else but have pages off all teh songs for that year and what place they came in. - fonzy

All the information specific to a particular Song Contest (location, entries, full results, perhaps also the songwriters, but not separate pages for every single song or something like that) could be on a page for that year's event, yes. Adding all that to one page would make it too big and the table is wide enough as it is. The links are already there in the table, all that is needed is for someone to edit them... ;) -Scipius

- i have created one for 1956 please tell me waht you think. - fonzy

It looks excellent, but I've taken the liberty of changing the table to look more like others on Wikipedia, what do you think? Cellpadding does not seem to work properly, so the text runs right to the edge of the cell for the moment, but it should be fixed at some point. Also, good work on shrinking the table on the main page, I hope that fixes Zoe's problem. -Scipius

Yet again a case of a table causing the page to span into the right margin. Can somebody tell me what to do to try to cut down the column widths? -- Zoe

--- I will keep the other tables to that style also i think some one should write a good artcile on each year of it underneath. - fonzy

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "that style". It's still too wide. -- Zoe

--i'm nto talking about the main table i am tlaking about the new idividucal tabels i am creating for each year. - fonzy. ps sorry to confuse you i should have written this below Scipius message.

On the individual pages: Fonzy: Yes, I originally added a bit of text, but then decided that the venue could stay in the table if no-one was going to write a short article. Someone should probably write something about the individual ESC (how it went, any peculiarities, etc.), but I don't know enough about the subject and I understand if you don't feel up to it at the moment either ;) It's not that necessary anyway at this point, let's have the tables first.
On the main table width: Zoe, does the table at least adapt to a changing size of browser window? For me (Moz1.0) it at the very least narrows the table automatically (breaks up the longer performer names and song titles) until a width that's far below what one can expect, so I don't see why it doesn't for you. -Scipius
The size seems fine now. Did someone change it? -- Zoe
I changed the note below the table (it had a space in front of it, thereby not narrowing automatically), maybe that was it? -Scipius

I need someone good at languages to check on spellings of foreign words on the names of the songs. Also I think some of the songs should have accents on. But the sources i got them from did not have them. - fonzy

I've noticed on various pages, such as this one, that European, especially non-English speaking, song titles are not capitalized except the first word. Is this not a rule outside of English-speaking countries, and/or is it rare in Europe? I don't mean to be nitpicky, but if many countries don't capitalize songs as a rule, Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Standards needs to be changed to reflect this. Tuf-Kat

Just a sample look at a couple of songs by typing them in at http://ubl.artistdirect.com/ show that the names are capitalized there. Are they wrong here? -- Zoe

I have some questions and comments about the various by-year contest pages, and I'm not sure where to put them, so I'll try here:

  • Every single one of them links to Eurovision, instead of Eurovision Song Contest. While colloquially "correct", strictly speaking this is sloppy; worse, Eurovision is (now) a disambiguation page, so it doesn't even take the user to the right place. I guess someone's going to have to go through and correct them all.
  • On the articles for some of the earlier contests, the "__NOTOC__" directive has been added. I would have thought it was perfectly sensible for these pages to have tables of contents, but wonder if there was a reason I haven't thought of for disabling them...?
  • Great work otherwise, by the way! Very, well, comprehensive!! :-D

- IMSoP 23:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] French Name

Is there a particular reason the French name is listed? Does it have some particular status within the contest, as compared to say the German name or the Greek name or the Italian name? --Delirium 09:35, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, English and French are the official languages of the EBU, which is why the presenters always give the scores in both languages as well as, optionally, their own -- hence "Norvège, nul points, Norway, no points"! :) -- Arwel 13:28, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Except, of course, "nul points" has never actually been uttered on the Eurovision stage - if a song receives no points at all, its name is never read out during the bilingual voting process... -- AnEff
Several of the initial winners were from french-speaking countries; therefore until 1967, all but three contests were actually called "Grand prix". This name seems to have stuck, i.e. I (a German) have never heard it called anything but "the Grand Prix". _Since_ 1967, there has not been a single event called "Grand prix", but still the name is used (in fact, I seem to recall an uproar in ~1998 when people actually noticed that the contest was now always called "EV Song contest"). 82.32.65.149 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
When I visited Germany in the "Eurovision season" a few years ago, some friends were trying to explain a large international music contest. It turned out, of course, that they meant the Eurovision. Surely the different names in common use should go at the start of the article - just so we all know what we're reading about? - Paul 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly is it?

As an American, I'm totally unfamiliar with the Eurovision song contest... and the article seems to have a number of major omissions. Major questions I still have, even after reading the article: What is a "song contest?" How are the entrants chosen? How is the winner chosen? What does the winner win? These seem like basic facts which may be obvious to Europeans, but are totally obscure to me. Can someone who knows about such things amend the article accordingly? -- Seth Ilys 05:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Some answers to your questions in other words, I think most of it is already in the article, but maybe not clear enough - I don't think I could get the article better by changing at at the moment, but everyone is invited: The "song contest" means the presentation of one song per country to find out which song/performance is the most popular throughout all participating countries. The entrants are chosen in different ways depending on the country - I do not know the current procedures, but there were times were a commission of several "professionals" (music journalists, composers, producers etc.) chose one song to represent their country in this event.
The usual procedure, however, is to do a TV show in each country (the countries are free to choose the mode) with several contestants, and the audience can vote for the most popular song by calling in (this is the way it's done in Germany, where I live.). The choice criteria for participants in this national "contest" is unknown to me - I suppose the TV station doing the show is selecting if there are more than, say, 12 entries. IIRC, there is usually a time limit for the publishing of the song - it must not be published earlier than a few weeks before the national contest. In Germany, this year it was possible to get into the national contest after the entry deadline because the CD was on #1 on the billboard for several weeks, but most other songs in the national contest are usually not what one would consider a billboard hit, at least not before the presentation on the a.m. TV show. After the national "election", each country sends the winning song to the European contest.
The winner of the European contest wins nothing particular (like money or a widely recognized trophy), but there is a possibility of fame rising after the winning of this contest. Best example for this is ABBA (they won in 1974, kicking off their world career) and Céline Dion, who once performed for Switzerland before she was famous across the world. The country where the winning entry originated has to host next year's event, which is often seen as possibility to advertise the own country to the rest of Europe, e.g. as a vacation spot. The costs of hosting the event, however, are a burden to the winning country (see main article, look for "Ireland"). - Chrysalis 11:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I've made a very minor change to it but I think the overview explains things reasonably well. In a nutshell it's a naff battle of the bands, with each 'band' (few acts are proper bands)representing a country. There's something for fans of europop, surreal stage acts, dancers in revealing clothes (of either sex) and geo-political bias in the voting. On other words, there's something for everyone! Bombot 10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Lebanon withdrew because of problems showing the Israeli performance, which the EBU requires? not because of the political crisis. -- Joolz 01:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision and Finland

Finland has never won the Eurovision Song Contest, and it's become common tradition in Finland to think it never will. Most Finnish songs have even fared very badly. That two countries very near us - Sweden and Estonia - have won merely adds insult to the injury.

There is a Finnish joke about this: A man frees a genie from a bottle. The genie says he will grant one wish. "Bring back the Carelian ithmus!" says the man. "That's too big a wish, maybe a smaller one?" replies the genie. "Finland should win the Eurovision Song Contest even once" says the man. The genie thinks for a while, then says "Let me see that map again..."

Are there any other countries with such an attitude towards the contest? — JIP | Talk 09:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally love the song Finland is sending this year - Hard Rock Hallelujah. Sadly, the watchers of Eurovision are pop-people and don't appreciate hard rock. But I'ma vote for Finland anyway. :D Rawk on. Iamyourpast 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic, this section. I think that Finnish joke just breathed its last :) Vilĉjo 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought as well. What should we change it to, then? Finland has already won a Nobel prize, and the world championship in ice hockey too... Maybe an Oscar for best foreign film? Or has that been done too? Or is it too lame? JIP | Talk 09:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for a draw

I read in one of the articles on Eurovision about what would happen if a draw were declared;

Eurovision Song Contest 1970

"To avoid an incident like in 1969, a tie rule was created. It stated that, if two or more songs gained the same number of points, each song would have to be performed again. After that every jury except the juries of the countries concerned would have a show of hands of which they thought was the best. If the countries tied again, then they would share first place."

Given that almost every country now uses televoting; have the rules changed, and should these rules be added to the page? --Neo 18:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the rules today is that in the case of a draw, the one with the most top scores (12 points) wins. If that also is tied, I'm unsure whether they go down the entire scale (10, 8, etc) to decide, or if both countries share first place. Hornblower 22:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. It also says that all voting members have a panel of judges in case the televoting malfunctions etc., so I would assume that it's those judges that are used. -Gerbon
No, in case of a tie, you go down the list like Hornblower stated. This has happened several times before, although I can't recall any specific years. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no, this was changed recently. Now the first rule is to count the number of countries from which they got any points. If that fails to break the tie, only then they apply Hornblower's procedure. (If you think about it, it's pretty much opposite in spirit, but, oh well.) For example, look at the official scoreboard here, Sweden and Ukraine have both 30 points, and Sweden is officially ranked higher, even though it has no 12s, while Ukraine has one. BTW you can find full rules at EBU's homepage, if you really want to check this. --Dzordzm 05:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I have an unrelated question, why are some interwikis pointing to articles about national preselections (e.g.Melodi Grand Prixes, say in Norway) rather than (existing) articles about ESC itself on those Wikipedias? --Dzordzm 05:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italy?

Anyone know why Italy haven't been in it since 1997? 84.13.136.202 11:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick wander round Google suggests that the broadcaster RAI weren't happy with the viewing figures and/or the ESC rules, so decided to stop taking part Dupont Circle 19:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] junior eurovision

Am I correct in believing that the rules of the junior eurovision require that the next year's host be pre-determined before the contest so as to reduce the stress on the children because they aren't singing for the prestige of hosting the competition next year? If I am should it be put in? 62.252.32.14 19:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This comment should be left at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest :) EuroSong talk 23:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New info about Romania and Moldova added

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2005/06/050614_eurovision_moldova.shtml --Danutz

[edit] Lebanon's 2005 Withdrawal

I may regret raising this, but does anybody else feel that the phrase 'decided to withdraw rather than show the Israeli entry' is a bit simplistic when describing why Lebanon withdrew from the 2005 contest? As I understand it, Tele-Liban, the Lebanese TV corporation, decided to enter, but it was later forced to withdraw when it emerged that Lebanese law made it impossible to show the Israeli entry (see here for the full story from the BBC). Perhaps a minor edit, to make the situation clearer? If we have to lay blame, at least reflect the fact that it was Lebanon's legislation that was the problem. At the moment it doesn't do Tele-Liban any credit for entering and instead suggests that it was their attitude problem which brought about the withdrawal. Comments? Peeper 12:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political voting - suggested amendment

Does anybody else feel that explaining away the UK's second places in 1992 and 1993 as a 'reward' for John Major's narrow victory in ratifying the Maastricht Treaty should be deleted? Here are my reasons for suggesting it.

  • It seems unlikely that the UK would be rewarded for two years in a row for ratifying the Maastricht Treaty.
  • If the voting juries were rewarding the UK, it seems excessive to so many votes as to secure second place twice.
  • The UK has come second more times than any other country in the history of the contest.
  • The exact circumstances of the UK's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, while tense, seems unlikely to have been so significant as to influence Eurovision juries barely at all. The UK was, and remained for some time at least, 'the reluctant European'.
  • The Eurovision Song Contest is not coterminous with the European Union - many participating countries were not EU members and would probably give little regard to internal EU politics.
  • I suspect somebody will raise Italy's victory in 1990 with Insieme:1992 as evidence, but this is quite different - the message of the song was directly concerned with European unity, it was ideological rather than overtly political, and the song's victory had no basis in contemporary EU politics. This example casts no light on how well Sonia and Michael Ball did!

Unless anybody has serious objections and can provide evidence to support this claim, I intend to delete it as we are at serious risk of over-explaining everything. There is, occasionally, the possibility that a song is good enough to score points. Comments please? Peeper 08:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fully agreed! To suggest any causal link between Maastricht and the UK's results in 1992 and 1993 is at best wishful thinking, and at worst the kind of flawed logic I'd expect to see trumpeted as "fact" over at esctoday.com and its ilk. Far more relevant must be, for example, the fact that the UK finally broke with its established trend of entering "no-names" and sent established stage/pop artists to those contests in the form of Michael Ball and Sonia respectively - both of whom would have had some kind of cachet with jurors around Europe at the time. Either way, though, to suggest that Major and Maastricht were somehow responsible for the UK's (near-)success in '92 and '93 is just plain ludicrous... AnEff

[edit] Why are non-European Countries in the EUROsong contest?

I was just wondering why non-European countries were allowed in this contest. Could someone explain it to me and add the explaination to the article?

As the second paragraph of the introduction says: The contest's name comes from the Eurovision TV distribution network, which is run by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and can reach a potential television audience of more than one billion. Any member of the EBU may participate in the contest. This also includes countries of Africa and Asia such as Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. Of these non-European nations, only Israel and Morocco have participated in the contest. Lebanon had intended to participate for the first time in 2005, but was later forced to withdraw when it emerged that Lebanese law made it impossible to show the Israeli entry (the contest rules require participating broadcasters to show all the songs). -- Arwel 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
C'mon, you expect people to actually *read* the article before criticising it? :-) AnEff
Tunisia also intended to participate once. This, therefore needs changing, as well as on the map. RedvBlue 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was told about this. Unfortunately I could not readily find a good reference for this fact. ESCtoday gives it a mention somewhere, but I really would prefer a more solid, non-fan-website reference for this. Can anyone help? EuroSong talk 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riverdance part correct

From the article:

"The Irish dancing show Riverdance was first seen internationally at the 1994 contest"

I think Riverdance was actually created for the occasion, not just "seen internationally" at that contest. So the link between Riverdance and the ESC are bigger - anybody care to chime in with facts? Peter S. 14:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's complicated. Bill Whelan composed a seven-minute piece of music which Michael Flattley choreographed for the 1994 Eurovision Song Contest interval. This piece was called Riverdance. The piece was later expanded greatly to become the internationally-famous stage show of the same name. As written, the statement isn't incorrect, however, it's also not entirely correct.

[edit] Poor English

What does "Because many European were founded on ideas of linguisitc unity" mean? - Fredrik | talk 17:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And "Usually between one third and a half of the contestants each year got at least once 12 points" - is this even English? Somebody with a good knowledge of the ESC and the English language needs to rewrite the 12 points club section; I can't do it myself because I have no idea what it is trying to say. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and the 1980 contest

While it may be true that the IBA wanted to save money to upgrade to color broadcasting, that does not change the fact that the contest was scheduled on Israel's Memorial Day, and henceforth, Israel did not participate at all. I believe that was the primary reason. The color broadcasting may have been a secondary reason. --Asbl 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fryede gave the following answer in the article
When Dutch broadcaster NOS stepped in to take over as hosts, the date they selected conflicted with Israel's Day of Remembrance.
Thanks, this explains it. Thank you. --Asbl 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template nominated for deletion

I nominated the Template:Eurovision Song Contest host cities for deletion. It is big, and is it useful for anyone but a fraction of the readers? Wouldn't a short notice, such as the {{Cities in Sweden}} be more expedient? / Fred-Chess 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

I think it looks quite silly to have so many sub-categories of external links. Does anyone else agree with me? I think that two categories: "Official sites" and "Fan sites" should be enough. Before I go and re-arrange it though....comments please? EuroSong 17:18, 10 April 2006

[edit] No Tezza?

Why isn't Terry Wogan mentioned prominently in this article? He's been hosting the celebrations for thousands of years now surely. He's the one who brings a bit of life to it anyway.(UTC)

I disagree that he should have his own section. Wikipedia is an international site, and the Eurovision Song Contest is an international institution. Wogan only has relevance to the BRITISH viewers, and I don't think he should be given any higher prominence in the international article than any other commentator - aside from a brief mention, since he is the most notorious one. EuroSong 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't host it, he just does the commentary for viewers in one country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political/geographical voting

The article has a number of references to geographical voting - Bosnia for Coratia, Cyprus for Greece and Turkey, the entire Eastern Bloc for Russia ("Thanks for the 12 points, Ukraine, your crude will be arriving tomorrow") - as well as This may or may not have a bearing on "Political and Regional Voting Patterns" as described above.. Someone appears to have appropriated an entire section of the article.

It really needs a rewrite generally, though;

  • It mentions Ireland's hat-trick three times in three paragraphs
  • It doesn't really give any impression of how much of a joke the whole thing is to many of the participants
  • The overview reads like something written by twenty people, all of whom disagreed with each other, and none of whom bothered to look at the rest of the section before tacking their bit on the end.

I'll almost certainly never get round to doing that rewrite, though, so the above are points to consider for anyone who wants to have a go (if they think they're hard enough). Tyrhinis 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sections

I have added expansion requests to the three sections which were blanked when breakout articles were created. Removing these sections entirely was a very bad move. It ruined the balance of the article, and I would now rate this article as very poor indeed on this account. In my opinion it is essential to have a summary of all aspects of a topic in the main article. Twittenham 11:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Might I note that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. I have removed the international ones (these can easily be found from google and this is the english speaking wikipedia) as well as the 'chat sites' (these are not in accordance with wikipedia external links policy and can also be found easily off of google). I hope there are no problems with this.

michaelCurtis talk+contributions 09:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. In my re-write, I stuck to your general idea and kept the list of external links relatively small - considering that there are a lot of Eurovision sites out there. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and we only need the main sites here.. and certainly no more than two categories of link! (Official sites and fan-created sites). EuroSong talk 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General clean-up/rewrite needed

I have noticed that the article seems to have become quite messy in recent times - and very poorly written in places. Possibly this is due to an influx of new contributors, around the time of the Contest. The article used to be very good - a few months ago. But now I think it needs a major clean-up and/or rewrite. I may take this upon myself to do... or not, as time permits. EuroSong 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I did the re-write myself. I cleaned out a lot of the non-encyclopædic stuff which should not be in the main article, including the yearly table (which could be re-included in the "history" article, I think. I've tried to keep it concise, although the article is still 37k (Wikipedia's recommended maximum article size is 30k). Also a few pictures have brightened it up a bit. I hope everyone is satisfied with the article as it is now. EuroSong talk 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highlights

If 1974 and 2004 are to be highlighted in the list, the article should give a reason for this. -- Jao 15:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need {{BSASE}}?

Do we really need {{BSASE}}? A template just for showing two winners and of something that was only peripheric to the real contest? I think that can be mentioned in the article without the need for a template --Andromeda 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that template is useless. JIP | Talk 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references and wikification. See WP:CITE and WP:WIKIFY. --Tarret 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's make this a Good Article

Hi everyone,

It is my intention, ultimately, to get this article listed as a Featured Article in Wikipedia. Featured articles are ones which fulfill all of the criteria according to Wikipedia guidelines, and ones which tend to get the most exposure. Each day a different article is featured on the Wikipedia main page: I am hoping that one day this article will be featured.

A step along the way to getting it featured, is to get it recognised as a Good Article. Please see these criteria. In particular, we need to ensure:

  • All the information given is encyclopædic in nature: that is to say, it is all relevant to the Eurovision Song Contest as a whole concept. We don't want to dwell on tiny details, or make long lists of things. Recently a mention of "Mr Brown" was tagged onto the end of the "Scrutineers" section, with a note that it is not the same person as an American jazz artist of the same name! This is irrelevant and unencyclopædic.
  • It is concise. Currently the aticle is 37k long. The recommended maximum length is 30k, so even now it is a bit too long. If someone thinks that some important information has been left out, perhaps it can be incorporated into existing sentences - or existing sentences can be replaced with superior, more factually accurate ones.
  • If someone thinks that something can be added to one of the sections about history, voting or winners, then please consider adding this information to the sub-articles accordingly. These articles were originally created to break out this information, as the main article was getting far too long. Again, think of the length.

If someone thinks that they have some good things to contribute which genuinely push the article further towards Featured Status, as defined by the criteria linked above, then please go ahead - and also feel free to talk about it here on this talk page.

Thanks :) EuroSong talk 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job everyone and congrats on getting this article to GA status. --Tarret 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's make this a Featured Article

I have been informed that articles going over 30k are fine, and it is not a barrier to achieving Featured status. Please participate in the Peer Review (as linked at the top of this talk page) and let me know your suggestions. Ten heads are better than one.. so you might notice some obvious mistake or omission which passed me by! EuroSong talk 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left on a contributor's talk page - copied here for others' reference

Featured Articles have a certain number of guidelines. One such guideline is that mentioning relative time differences should be minimised. So for example, to talk about "next year's Contest" when referring to Eurovision 2007, makes it clear that the text was written in 2006. That means, this text will become out-of-date next year. The best articles should not do this: they should be static information, which will be true for as long as possible. It is even borderline, to mention such things as "As of 2006, the country who has entered the longest with no wins to their name is Portugal." - because who knows? Portugal might win next year*; rendering the article out-of-date. It is also not a good thing to mention the 2007 participants, Czech Republic and Georgia, as if they have actually made their debut. The 2007 Contest has not happened yet. This information is speculative and subject to change. In fact I seem to remember some news about the Czech Republic intending to enter one year recently - but then they changed their mind and decided not to. Such information should not be included in the article until the end of the three minutes of those debut countries' songs - because up until then, anything can happen which might mean their participation is cancelled! EuroSong talk 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* Yeah, right

Okay, we got it Featured :)

Remaining points to consider, as of now, are:

  • Can we find a better image than the plain generic logo?
  • Can we set some criteria for successful artists' inclusion in the list in the "Winning artists" section?

Hopefully we can get this on the main page on the date of the 2007 Contest. EuroSong talk 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed info on origin of name

I've changed this statement:

The name "Eurovision" was first used by British journalist George Campey in the London Evening Standard in 1951, where he dubbed the Contest "Eurovision Grand Prix".

for two reasons:

  • It says he gave the contest that name in 1951, however the contest was not even conceived until 1955.
  • The reference link that was provided said that he gave the name 'Eurovision' to the Eurovision Network only, not the contest.

If anyone can prove me wrong, feel free to add that back to the article and leave a note here. Thanks! --Lewis R « т · c » 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. I can't believe I let that one pass me by! Of course, what I meant to say is just that the name "Eurovision" was first used in relation to the network in 1951 - and then the name for the network was adopted by the Contest when it came to pass in 1956. Of course, the wording before says that he actually dubbed the ESC with the name Eurovision. That is indeed incorrect, as can be seen from the reference. Thank you very much for pointing this out: I appreciate it. I have now re-added the information, but in the correct context. Now it is mentioned alongside the first mention of the Eurovision Network, and not as a reference to the Contest actually being named as such by the journalist. Thanks! EuroSong talk 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Contest in popular culture

This was an interesting and growing section. Is there merit in restoring this as a separate page?

I'm not sure, really. It might be considered non-encyclopædic, to have a whole separate article just on "The Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture". On the other hand, I can tell you one thing: interesting and amusing though the section was, it does not belong in this article. Such lists are rarely encyclopædic; and on the occasions that they are, they need to be exhaustive and definitive. The ESC has been mentioned so often, and in so many contexts, that making a definitive list would be impossible (and far too long even if it were possible). Besides, the list which existed before had a heavy Anglophone slant to it — there were only two references to the Contest which did not originate from the English-speaking entertainment media. Although this article is written in English, on the English-language Wikipedia, Eurovision is an international topic and equal weight should be given to its influence in all countries. If you do think you can come up with an exhaustive, encyclopædic, and non-Anglophone-biased list of references to the Contest in popular culture - and then write a separate article about it - then I wish you the best of luck! :) EuroSong talk 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be impossible to come up with an exhaustive list, any more than it would be possible to come up with an exhaustive list for Leprechauns in popular culture, Nuclear weapons in popular culture or any other other of "in popular culture" articles on Wikipedia . A "Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture" article would be in the same spirit. Dbromage

[edit] Voting patterns

This is one of the most noticeable and might I say, notorious aspects of eurovision. Why isnt there a mention of the effects of neighbor voting, ethnically related countries voting for each other (greece/cyprus, Romania/moldova), minority voting (albanians in macedonia/turks in germany/russians in the baltic states) and so on?

There is a mention. It's under the "Criticisms" section. There is even a reference made to a document which discusses the neighbourly voting patterns - and another reference made to a document which explains the reasons why neighbourly voting occurs. Did you not read it? :) EuroSong talk 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
See - that's what I said. People won't be reading the entire article on once sitting. People go to WP for a quick reference check or to get some "infotainment", you can't force them to read that end-to-end. This is why I think the voting patterns sections should go with the general voting section :D Regards, Bravada, talk - 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe.. I do see your point. But if I moved the "political voting" paragraph to the "voting" section, then what of the criticism of the music? It would be sitting alone in its own section, which would not really be suitable. Also there is no other section with which to merge it. I have already stated my reasons for not including a whole separate section discussing musical styles. Would you then suggest I removed it altogether? That could possibly be done: but then I might be accused of being POV, in the sense that the entire article includes no mention of the criticisms levelled at the Contest's music whatsoever: something which is associated with the Contest in many people's eyes. What do you think? Is the article better as it is now, or would it not matter if the musical criticisms were removed and the voting criticism merged with the voting section? Like you, I am also "too involved" in the article to judge this objectively. Perhaps.. EuroSong talk 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To answer in short - no, I think you might reconsider your stance on the section regarding musical/performance style and perhaps team up with some other editors interesting in music/performing arts to help develop it further. Moreover, as a stopgap measure it wouldn't be wrong to have a section entitled simply "Criticism of musical styles and presentation", which would later be developed into a section highlighting not only criticism.
Some projects I think it would be good to pester: Music, Music genres, Songs, Dance. Perhaps this is not within the scope of the projects themselves, but there might be some brave souls willing to take up the challenge - writing about music can be fun, even if you don't like it. Unfortunately, WikiProject Writing about music is inactive, perhaps because there was only one username ever on the participants' list, and that's only for a day (!) Also I would try to mobilize the fellow members of our own WikiProject Eurovision - what we need is all kinds of write-ups on Eurovision music, more or less NPOV (you can always elicit some information from a POV text) to compose something from. I will also try to dig out something whenever I find time... Bravada, talk - 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successful artists

I completely forgot about that, I should've brought that out earlier, but this is actually fairly important - some good criteria need to be set for the inclusion in the list. I am not into the "golden record" or chart things, but I believe some sensible criteria can be established - and then all potential winners should be checked against that. That said, I would rather the criteria would automatically exclude winners from, say, 5 last years, because I believe only enduring success is worth recognition - many artists rode on a short wave of popularity of their ESC entry, but it quickly faded away. Bravada, talk - 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: I totally agree. I can't believe that I myself didn't think about that list more carefully when I reviewed the article. The list was originally written from what my personal feelings were about the success of the artists, but it excluded Ruslana (from whom I have never heard in any other non-Eurovision context). Then someone else added Ruslana, and I thought "okay then - she must be more successful than I knew". But yes, I sort-of agree with you about excluding recent winners. The thing is, it's hard to define such criteria for inclusion into the list. The criterion for the list I originally made was: "Have I personally heard of this artist's success" independently of the Contest?" With such singers as Nicole and Johnny Logan, I have heard of them commercially (and I am not a person who pays a lot of attention to the non-Eurovision commercial music scene!) separate from my own interests in Eurovision. With artists such as Eimear Quinn and Charlotte Nilsson (whose success has, I believe, only been in Scandinavia and only riding on her Eurovision win), I have not. But my own personal "having heard of" criterion is, in retrospect, not a very scientific way of judging these things :) The problem is: what criteria should we use? I have a mild temptation to remove that list altogether, but don't really want to because I believe it is important to mention at least some artists whose careers have been successful following their Eurovision win. EuroSong talk 07:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Since it seems we both don't we have a good idea for the criterium, I guess you could ask at the music-related WikiProjects - I believe they might have had to deal with similar issues before. Bravada, talk - 11:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Ruslana isn't famous! Why Helena is deleted?--Chronisgr 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me how her Helena's has taken off after her Eurovision win? Does she have a lot more success now than she already did with Antique? EuroSong talk 22:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes she has more success than she had with Antique(that was the reason they split up). Helena is the only winner of the last years that made a hit in Europe after her victory in Eurovision. Actually Mambo seems to be more successful in Airplay Charts around Europe than My Number One.Also My Number One entered at 45 in Billboard Hot Dance Charts and the single will be released this Tuesday in the US. --Chronisgr 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to establish some rules here FAST! People keep adding whoever to the list, it is now quite contradictory to what the article says, as it seems that almost EVERYBODY achieved great international success after their win! Bravada, talk - 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Thing is, what rules? I could decide some arbritarily, but that would just be me. I had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, but I don't really see how I can just ask the members there for opinions on how to make criteria for this list. For now, I have done the following:
  • Removed the recent additions
  • Excluded artists from the past 5 years, as per your suggestion
  • Put each artist on a separate line in the source (doesn't affect the display, but makes it easier to see and edit)
  • Added a comment asking people to discuss additions on the talk page before editing.
It's not perfect, but hopefully it can stem the tide until we think of something else. EuroSong talk 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

The maps need to be changed, especially the first one. There should be more countries in yellow (active members, e.g. Egypt), but they can't even be seen on the map, let alone coloured. Also the map contradicts with the article: Tunisia in the Eurovision Song Contest. While on the subject of images, instead of having a picture from Congratulations (as that wasn't actually a Eurovision Song Contest), why not have a picture of the logo being unveiled, such as the top right image on this page: [1]. RedvBlue 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have a map which includes Egypt?
  • The information on Tunisia is unreferenced: the 50th anniversaty book doesn't mention it, and a Google search only returns Wikipedia-based sources, and ONE from ESCtoday - and I'm not happy about including such information based upon only one reference. Can you find another one maybe? - Actually I did just find a good reference here. Thanks: I shall include this information when we can get a better map.
  • The unveiling of the logo image looks quite nice: but what about licensing, I wonder. We might have to ask www.eurovision.tv if we could use it.
Thank you for your suggestions. EuroSong talk 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth is "Eurovision Week" doing in this article?

This section has no relevance or interest to anyone outside the small coterie of fans attending the event, why is it taking up precious space in the article?

The information is interesting, encyclopædic and properly referenced. If you think it has "no interest to anyone not attending", then perhaps you should check out the article's Peer Review, where it was mentioned that this section was of great interest – by someone who had never been to the Contest. This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest. That means that if it's to be a good quality encyclopædic article, it needs to cover all aspects of the Contest: not just to mention how it it shown as a television programme. EuroSong talk 07:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coded phrases

I think that you should use coded phrases in your competition. I mean that you can decide what every phrase must content something special. You can decide modulation, tact and other things - just to make sure that it was the right composer that composed and no one else. I also think that you should make other rules about "WINNING". I mean action on scen is something else than the song that is performed. Performing can also be divided into different tasks 1) singing 2) dancing 3) how the actors are dressed 4) What happens on stage? can you winn just by performing a show? 5) how the music is played instrumentally.

Eva Kristina Jonsson Tegelgatan 7 716 30 Fjugesta

Sweden —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.20.61.66 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Countries that have never entered Eurovision

The countries that have never entered Eurovision, although they could if they wanted to, are the Czech Republic and Georgia in Europe, Algeria and Tunisia in Africa, and Lebanon in the Middle East. Lebanon was already planning on entering in 2005 but withdrew. This list should be mentioned in the article somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lebanon issue is mentioned in the article already. EuroSong talk 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but are the other four countries mentioned anywhere? JIP | Talk 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Czech Rep and Georgia are entering in 2007... Celticfan383
Isn't this list (which now includes nine countries supposedly elegible for entry in the contest) somewhat ambiguous? It's already explained in the same section that geographic location or EU membership has nothing to do with a country's qualification to enter. Technically (assuming that this is true) we could list every known country in the world in this paragraph, but it might be easier just to remove it altogether or just list the actual European countries that have never participated. ~~ Peteb16 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Not every country in the world would be mentioned. It's about the country having a broadcaster which is an Active Member of the EBU, and is in the European Broadcasting Area (not the same thing as geographical Europe). Read the article - eligibility is explained in detail :) EuroSong talk 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. :) ~~ Peteb16 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The European Broadcast area includes Palestine ( unless I'm missing something ) but the accompanying map doesn't. Shouldn't it?Skopelos-Slim 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The map is not one of the European Broadcasting Area: it is one of the eligible countries. Not all countries in the EBA are eligible: they must have a broadcaster which is a member of the EBU. See the page here. Palestine does not have an EBU member. Actually, there are countries in North Africa which should be on the map, but which are not... because I can't find a good enough suitable map EuroSong talk 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

First, i saw this article and thaught that "Well, There must be some standard infobox for this (type of) music event. When i searched around and found out that there weren't any "music event" infoboxes at all, i made a dedicated ESC infobox. I later changed the name of the infobox to Infobox song competition, and removed the EBU logo.

People should remember that the purpose of infoboxes is primarily to give a quick overview of the company/organisation/annual event ect. - And not necessarily "infobox exclusive" GDPs and numbers.

A single, frames low-res jpeg logo in the right of the main article of this vast project was a little odd introduction, I think.

Please accept and IMPROVE this the infobox because the annual music event of Eurosong is such a typical infobox-article. Ssolbergj 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this addition. The infobox could be used in many different song competition articles. Nice. --Bob 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is ugly, unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I also dislike Ssolbergj's edit warring. EuroSong talk 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously a disagreement here that needs to be resolved. No more edits should now occur involving the infobox until a concensus has been set up to gauge general opinion. A decision should then be made based on the concensus rather than two peoples conflicting opinions. May I respectfully point out that neither Ssolbergj or Eurosong should revert any further today as they would both be guilty of WP:3RR.
If I may give my own opinion, the idea that an infobox template needed to be created specifically for this contest is rediculous. {{infobox television}} would've been appropriate. It is, after all, a television programme. ~~ Peteb16 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europope?

Having just checked the EBU website at [2] it would seem that the Vatican City may be entitled to enter the contest as well. There is a Vatican Radio station, although I'm not sure if they would need to have a TV station as well in order to enter. The current pontiff does have a better singing voice than his predecessor, although having a conclave of cardinals to decide their votes might not be allowable under the current rules.Moldovanmickey 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)MoldovanMickey Preceding comment repaired Peteb16 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A TV station is needed to enter. While not specifically mentioned in the Contest rules, references are made everywhere to the televised broadcast of the show by the participating EBU members. Obviously, Vatican Radio would be unable to do this: therefore they would not be able to follow the rules of the Contest. EuroSong talk 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEurovision_Song_Contest_c034.html"