Home
Talk
Article
Alerts
Assessment
Quality
Articles
Popular
Pages
Formatting
& Guidance
MembersUserboxesArchive
(WP Eurovision)

Userboxes

I think it could be fun to have a bunch of userboxes like the ones below to put somewhere on the wikiproject page. Let me know and I'll make some more. Btw, the ŠČ one has a few different forms, so go here to check it out.

This user broke the code
(woah oh oh)
ŠČ!Trajna-nina, armagedonona!

Brobbz (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea! I could make a few myself — IмSтevan talk 12:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! :) I set up a category so they can be easily indexed, and made these ones
€This user always stays cool,
like a swimming pool.
€This user needs a chance to refinance.
. Brobbz (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user wonders what the
secret to Meghan Markle's
healthy hair is
This user is grateful
for the existence of the
autonomic nervous system
This user takes walks
with their dog
This user counts their steps
This user is invisible
— IмSтevan talk 18:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Userboxes is a redirect for now, but perhaps it can be turned into a list of userboxes — IмSтevan talk 19:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I love it
𝄞This user serves kant!
𝄞This user has a secret you should know (do re mi fa sol)
Brobbz (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in 1993 and 1996

Pinging @Sims2aholic8 who reverted my edits to the 1993 and 1996 pages. I had added a footnote to the number of participants (23) listed in the infoboxes of these pages, noting the qualifying rounds but that these are not given as official participations for the DNQs. Per WP:SYNTH, we consider these to be no different to semi finals on the "country in the contest" articles, so a note should be required on why these are different to 2004 onwards. I am disappointed these were reverted outright, they do not appear to break any MOS guideline. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted these edits because I do not believe this information needs to be called out in the infoboxes. The qualifying rounds in 1993 and 1996 are not the same thing as the semis from 2004 onwards, and the EBU does not count the entries which didn't progress as official entries for those countries, e.g. Romania's page at eurovision.tv. I don't really know where you're getting "we consider these to be no different to semi finals on the "country in the contest" articles" from tbh, apart from the fact that the results of those qualifying rounds are listed in the tables; personally I don't take that to mean that they are identical. Also can you please explain how you believe there to be a WP:SYNTH violation by not including a footnote in the infobox? I believe that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is an important MOS guideline to consider, specifically "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I prefer leaving the infobox as is, particularly given the EBU considers those contests to have 25 and 23 entries respectively, and since I believe that adding in a footnote to show "exceptions" would be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the topic, especially considering that delegations from 25 and 23 countries respectively actually went to the host city. This is a big difference compared to 2004 onwards when all delegations are present, and the whole contest is hosted in one week. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we're applying more a modern way of thinking to something that happened in the past and it's hard to know exactly how things were presented or perceived back then, even with the many sources out there. I think it's pretty clear that many countries wanted to part in those two contests, but the countries that did not make it through the qualifying rounds did not take part. Let's try to not retroactively apply the semi-final way of thinking to the past. As Sims noted, it's not that this information is missing from the article, it's just not something that must be included in the quick overview infobox. The total number of participants is the number that took part, no asterisk. Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on establishing articles under remit of WikiProject Song Contests and importance scale

As part of the renaming of the WikiProject, I believe it's important that we find consensus on which articles should remain under the remit of the new WP Song Contests, which should be removed from the project's scope, as well as how we scale them in terms of importance. I have outlined my thoughts on this, and would be grateful for any comments or suggestions as this is definitely not yet set in stone!

  • ...articles that describe a contest for each year
  • ...articles that describe a country's participation in an international contest
  • ...articles that describe a country's participation in an international contest for one year only
  • ...articles on songs which competed in one of the events covered by the project
  • ...other articles and lists about a particular event covered by the project
  • ...biographical articles on artists which competed in an event covered by the project

Things that I believe should not be included within the scope of the project:

  • Broadcasters which participate in/organise an event
  • Contest venues
  • Biographical articles for people who did not compete in an event, e.g.:
  • individuals related to a contest entry but which did not perform as a main artist, e.g. backing singers, songwriters, conductors, choreographers, creative directors
  • contest presenters
  • production staff
  • other performers (singers/dancers etc.) that were involved in performances outside of a contest's participating entries (e.g. opening/interval acts)
  • Articles for events which do not fall under the definition of a "song contest", including:
  • Any other articles currently listed as under the remit of WikiProject Eurovision which do not fall under the new criteria above, including:

Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. I also like that songs have moved up a level from 'low' to 'mid'. Grk1011 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was a bit of a strange discovery for me to be honest, especially given how many good articles we have which cover the competing songs (60 as of 21 February 2025) compared to relevant biographical articles for singers (8 as of same date). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're likely to gain hundreds of songs from national finals as part of this change. That's ok, but just pointing out that while we lose some articles, we'll likely end up with many many more than before. As we look to remove banners, it may also make sense prior to that to determine which articles may warrant an AfD discussion. There are a lot of stubs that have been created over the years solely to accomplish the project Objectives, which were intended just for ESC, but have naturally expanded to cover all the various contests. It isn't clear if many are actually notable. I'm thinking the various "country in"," country in year", etc. articles. Examples: Belgium in the Eurovision Young Dancers, Belgium in the Eurovision Young Musicians, Kyrgyzstan in the ABU TV Song Festival and the like. Grk1011 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we think it might be worthwhile pinging all project members on this as well? Just noticing it's been almost a week and we've had very little engagement. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision entrants categories

I recently noticed that subcategories for Eurovision Song Contest entrants and Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants were deleted with many of the pages failing to be recategorized in the existing main category. Is there a way we can do this without manually going through every single article about a Eurovision participant? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is an easy way to achieve this using automation. Possibly in tandem with the changes to the importance ratings being discussed above we can ensure that any artists not included are suitably recategorised. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize the English name of “Andra chansen”

The 5th episode of every edition of Melodifestivalen since 2002 has gone by different names, and this is made even more difficult to talk about in English, due to the lack of a standardized translation.

In Swedish, the official wiki of Melodifestivalen (run by SVT themselves) uses the word uppsamlingskval (Swedish for 'repechage') as a catch all term. They specifically draw the comparison to rowing and similar sports, where this vocabulary comes from.[1]

It’s not a big deal in articles that are only relevant to one edition of Melodifestivalen, but in articles describing artists, for instance; terms like “vinnarnas val”, “allmänhetens val”, “andra chansen”, “semifinalen”, and “finalkvalet” are confusing because they all refer to the same thing, and especially so when these get informally translated into English by different authors on Wikipedia, causing an even bigger mess.

I suggest that repechage be the English-language term used on Wikipedia for this heat, to match how it’s done in Swedish. LivLovisa (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points; however, as a native English speaker, repechage is a term I have never heard of in my life. Perhaps just "second chance" would be more fitting? I'd be interested to see what English-language sources use. Grk1011 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repechage is a term used in a lot of different sports, particularly those that have many competitors facing off in heats. Here are some examples of usage in the Olympics, for instance.[2][3] LivLovisa (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also a native English speaker and I have heard 'repechage' before, but yes it's very much a sporting term so can understand how someone may not come across it before. I totally understand where you're coming from, it is a bit "mismatch"-y currently between all the different terms, and I would support standardising this NF concept to repechage. It would also be useful to have a consistent word we can use across all contests, e.g. Melodi Grand Prix has also had a siste sjansen round in past editions, as well as past editions of NFs in Denmark, Iceland and San Marino, to name a few. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there consistent examples of that word being used as the name for these rounds in English? This naming convention should be based on WP:COMMONNAME and while my search did find a couple examples of "repechage" for this use, most seemed to use "second chance", which is a much more widely-understood term. While you mention "uppsamlingskval (Swedish for 'repechage')", that isn't actually what the dictionary/translation services return; I got "catch-up qualifiers" and "collection qualification". Those translations aren't quite helpful to use instead, but translating Swedish to an obscure French word occasionally used in English for sporting events does not seem like a good option either. Grk1011 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please don’t trust machine translations, for a start.
2. I’m advocating for the common name in Swedish to be translated into English specifically because there isn’t a standard term in English. WP:COMMONNAME directly states:

When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

3. It’s not an obscure word, it's used all over in different competitions. LivLovisa (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't provided evidence for your translation? Perhaps I misunderstood your proposal as I thought you were trying to rename everything as repechage. I suppose you could write something like "For 2014, a repechage round named Andra chansen (second chance) took place where...". I Just want to make sure we're reflecting actual sources, not summarily categorizing things. It sounds more like this is a description rather than a name, and that's overall fine to me, especially if wikilinked. Grk1011 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already linked the glossary used in SVT’s own styleguide. If you’re looking for sources for the translation specifically, look at Wiktionary, or the fact that I’m a native speaker of Swedish as well as a Swedish–English translator. I’d also love to show you how it’s used as a translation during Swedish broadcasts of the Olympics, for instance, but then I’d be violating copyright law. LivLovisa (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you linked a Swedish-language glossary and summary from SVT, which says nothing about what term to use in English. I assumed that is why you started this discussion? As I said, I found it weird to say "hey let's use a borrowed French word in place of the Swedish term". I was hoping there was something more commonly used in English instead of more jargon. Our goal here is to make sure that by grouping these under one umbrella term that folks will actually be able to understand what we're talking about, not have to click more links to find out what those terms mean too. But what is your response to the actual question how to use repechage in articles if you believe it's the most accurate? I offered some suggestions to move forward and instead you wanted to continue to litigate the translation. Grk1011 (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is uniquely special that it’s a loanword from French? You realise much of the vocabulary of English is loaned from French, right?
Either way, I know there isn’t a standard English translation. That’s exactly what I’m trying to fix, by translating the agreed-upon standard Swedish term.
To answer your question about usage, I imagine something like

she qualified to the final from the first heat via the repechage

and so on. Especially useful when talking about the same moment of the competition across different editions where they’ve gone by different names, like

they qualified for the repechage in 2016 and 2024

LivLovisa (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no to that format since there is a consistent term used in refs for those events, whether it be "second chance" or something else year-specific. Grk1011 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically is wrong about saying

They qualified for the final via the repechage in 2002, 2016, and 2024.

instead of saying

They qualified for the final via vinnarnas val in 2002, via andra chansen in 2016, and via finalkvalet in 2024.

when they all refer to the same thing, and its Swedish equivalent

De tog sig till final via uppsamlingskval 2002, 2016, och 2014.

is already standard?
Your way of doing this is far more confusing. Using “second chance” like you suggest is also a translation of Swedish, which you complained about, and it’s anachronistic when applied to the entire span between 2002 to present day. I seriously don’t get why you’re so anti about this. LivLovisa (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the sources are translating it, not us editors. Use of "second chance" is widespread, repechage is not, nor does it actually appear in any sources about individual contests. Like I said "For 2014, a repechage round named Andra chansen (second chance) took place where..." would be a great use of the umbrella term. Grk1011 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The sources I add regarding Melodifestivalen are gonna be almost exclusively in Swedish, so I have to translate it. The usage of "second chance" may be widespread, but it is flat out wrong to use it for some years. The reason why English language sources still use the wrong term is because there isn’t a standardised English translation, which is the problem I’m trying to fix. If Wikipedia is wrong, and everyone else is wrong because they get their information from Wikipedia, you can’t simply wait for that wrong statement to magically correct itself in the mainstream discussion before fixing it on Wikipedia; you’ll have to change it on Wikipedia first. LivLovisa (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a solution that's WP:V and from a WP:RS then we can do something. If the reliable sources don't present things the way you feel they should be, I don't have a solution for you. Grk1011 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I do personally support the potential inclusion of the word "repechage" as a catch-all term here, I do have to agree with Grk1011 that it's not our place to impose a term when reliable sources don't back it up in English. Having a quick look for the 2025 edition a lot of reliable sources continue to use "second chance" as the default term, mainly I would say because it was the name for so long. See some examples below:
Even "finalkval" as a loanword appears to be more common among reliable sources that "repechage" right now. The only sources I can see using "repechage" for this are typically social media sites (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter), which do not pass WP:RS. I think Grk1011's compromise wording (listing and linking repechage and then including the Swedish name after this) could work within Melodifestivalen articles; I don't know how we go about wording it in artist articles that isn't too wordy though. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ESC
No tags for this post.