Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Song Contests and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Archived discussions from WikiProject Eurovision: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Song Contests This page is within the scope of WikiProject Song Contests, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of song contest-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Song ContestsWikipedia:WikiProject Song ContestsTemplate:WikiProject Song ContestsSong Contests

@ImStevan: @Sims2aholic8: Should this be expanded? Fort esc (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft in question

I suggested making this article and perhaps moving viewing figures there, but I think the consensus was that viewing figures should be on country by year articles. So this draft just kind of stayed there. I don't know what to do with it — IмSтevan ^talk 19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision.tv is moving to Eurovision.com (https://eurovision.tv/story/time-update-your-bookmarks-eurofans). Eurovision.tv will remain up until sometime next week. I don't know how many sources we have that rely on Eurovision.tv at the moment - would have thought somewhere in the thousands. Eurovision.com is nowhere near as fully fleshed out, is missing results for every year, has no lyrics, attributes entries to the wrong country - in short it's fucked. So unless they move the entire site within a week which they won't do I think we are going to have to archive all of Eurovision.tv as it is.

Is there any way to do this? Toffeenix (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a lot of links to Eurovision.tv do not have an archive link and will therefore rot, just look at History of the Eurovision Song Contest § References. Updating all of these manually is going to be a pain...

I wonder how script-friendly the Wayback Machine is, maybe it's possible to do this semi-automatically. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, they've just said on Reddit that detailed voting results, alongside "new profiles, event histories, logos and media" will be available in February. But that's a while with broken sources Toffeenix (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They also just said here that they will be redirecting the old links, but again that it will take some time. This means it won't be that bad if we fail to update some links, but I'd still rather not go three months with broken links on most Eurovision-related articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Eurovision.tv. All the links I've tried redirect to the Eurovision.com homepage.  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  07:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same for JuniorEurovision.tv minus the voting platform.  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  06:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a certain pattern with edits by Szyign, so I have to ask, are you Szymona Ignatiuka, the founder of ESC Spot? In some instances in which English languaged sources are skipped in your edits, you go straight for the main source (broadcaster), but in others you don't do that, when you decide to cite ESC Spot instead. I picked this pattern up from Eurovision Young Musicians 2026 and Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2025 articles. Not saying that any of this is against the rules, but for the sake of transparency I felt like I had to ask, especially with us recently having a discussion on the reliability of ESC Spot. — IмSтevan ^talk 22:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I confirm – it's me.

As you noticed, the fact that I am an editor at ESCSpot and also edit Wikipedia is not really against the rules, but for the sake of transparency, I will explain anyway – long before ESCSpot was created, I used to spend time on Wikipedia adding information, so despite starting work on the portal, I decided not to give up this hobby and continue working on it, which is easy to see from the number of edits I make, most of which are not related to Eurovision articles :)

As for sources, now that I think about it, it may have happened that when I didn't have a direct source at hand, I could have used ESCSpot, but it wasn't because I wanted to promote it or anything like that, it was more because I had it at hand first, unintentionally.

Of course, if this is a problem, I will try to pay attention to it in the future and avoid it, I had no bad intentions.

When it comes to non-English sources, I prefer to use them first, because in the case of Eurovision, they are usually more reliable than English ones, but that may be a matter of my personal beliefs.

As for Eurovision Young Musicians 2026, I would say that it's a matter of other websites not covering this topic. Sometimes Eurovoix writes something, and then I try to add them as another source. But for the most part, there is a relative dryness on this topic, which is probably why I end up adding ESCSpot.

As for the discussion about the reliability of ESCSpot, I saw it some time ago, but I decided that my participation in it as a person associated with the website would be inappropriate and unreliable, so I decided not to take part in it.

Best regards! Szyign (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify, I wasn't implying that there are bad intentions, nor that anything you're doing is a problem. I was just asking for the sake of transparency. Heck, I'm in the same boat! We discussed my position in Evrovizija.rs a while ago regarding ROTW votes — IмSтevan ^talk 22:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, no - don't worry, I didn't take it that way, I just wanted to clarify it anyway in case anyone had any doubts! Szyign (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

We touched on this topic back in 2024, but never resolved it, and once again we have a bit of an issue; "Nova zora" has been selected, is sung by a Montenegrin artist, written by a Serbian songwriter, for a country that has a majority Serbian speaking population, but Montenegrin as an official language. There is absolutely nothing that would tell us which language this song is in other than just defaulting to the person's ethnicity, which opens a different can of worms, and even then things are not as clear. So I am here to ask a question, should language in tables simply ignore Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin and default to Serbo-Croatian, with a possible note (kind of like with Zjerm) when we have some confirmation as to which standard is meant to be used?

Participants

Country	Broadcaster	Artist	Song	Language	Songwriter(s)
Albania	RTSH	Shkodra Elektronike	"Zjerm"	Albanian[a]	Lekë Gjeloshi Beatriçe Gjergji Kolë Laca
Montenegro	RTCG	Tamara Živković	"Nova zora" (Нова зора)	Serbo-Croatian[b]	Boris Subotić

I'm all ears for suggestions — IмSтevan ^talk 22:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wanna add that restarting this conversation popped into my head while I was working on the Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 2026 article, specifically the table of participants in Montesong 2025, due to the fact that the table had 13/15 entries labeled as being in Montenegrin, with Montesong 2025 also having all 16 entries on the article labeled as being in Montenegrin, which is a statistical impossibility, as 43% of Montenegro declares themselves speakers of Serbian, and 34% of Montenegrin. Without having a defining feature to go off, the songwriter might say that the song is in Serbian, the performer might say that it's in Montenegrin (or vice-versa, doesn't matter either way) and nobody would be able to tell either of them that they're wrong. — IмSтevan ^talk 07:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the contest clearly considers these all to be separate languages given the inclusion of all four BCSM languages in that 2016 interval thing. and presumably at some point they'll put out some bit of social media going on about "there's 18 languages this year and here's what they all are". until we get an official confirmation of the contest's stance I guess it's fine to have this, just unsure if it implies some kind of difference between Nova zora and the prior Montenegrin entries (Dobrodošli etc) which fall into the same kind of grey zone Toffeenix (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support defaulting all BCSM languages in these tables to Serbo-Croatian, with added footnotes only when there is explicit confirmation as to the specific variety. If there is no reliable source one way or the other (which will probably be quite rare anyway) then no footnote should be added. That being said, I do worry that this could open up another can of worms with regards to language "separatists" (if that's the right term) who insist on each variety being listed separately; I'm not saying however that that should be a reason to not make this change, just voicing a potential concern. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no clear answer and in general these specific languages have a history of disagreements, I'd put this under "material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged" from WP:VERIFY. That would mean we do not list any language at all unless a reliable source identifies it. Recall that we always need to have a source for language and it shouldn't be editor-determined when a source cannot be found. This has come up in the past and impacted WP:GA reviews. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia lists Serbo-Croatian as a language, and the 4 as variants. We can always verify using other sources, which wouldn't be a SYNTH issue. Perhaps we could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages for their thoughts on the topic? — IмSтevan ^talk 13:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a recurrent issue now that Gaza genocide exists as a Wiki page, so should all references to it with regard to Israel's ESC participation since then wikilinked to that page, Gaza war, or both? Pdhadam (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]