Talk:List of Eurovision Song Contest winners

message: To claim something else is simply counter-factual!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.168 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the FAQ section at the very top of this talk page. It will provide you with an answer. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A counter-factual answer is still a counter-factual answer - I guess Wikipedia is not a place for facts  109.192.144.157 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  please be civil when reply to other's comments. There is nothing "counter-factual" whatsoever. It boils down to geographical status at both periods of time. It is a known fact that Germany was divided. In 1982, the FR Germany was on the western side. In 2010, the FR Germany was the entire country (east and west). The map has to show the factual geographical correctness at the time that FR Germany in 1982 was "divided"; whilst also showing how FR Germany geographically looks today. Yes, Germany won twice, but the map still has to show how country-shape of Germany looked during both their wins. Perhaps a better worded footnote is required to explain this? Wes Mouse | T@lk 23:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Federal Republic of Germany won twice 

message: , recently included a brief mention about Kosovo within the referenced note for the map (see diff). Seeing as Kosovo is only partially recognised, should we be mentioning the region, or omit the information until Kosovo becomes a fully recognised nation? Wes Mouse ✒ 13:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo inclusion 

message: I added this several years ago, but it was removed.
Margins are useless without the total number of points awarded. If you win by 10 points, it makes a difference if it's 10 out of 11 or 10 out of 1000 points. The first case is a decisive win. The second is a close race. But you can't tell if you don't know how many points you're competing for. And the total changes frequently at Eurovision.
So, even at the risk of the table becoming messy by adding another column, I say we should include the total number of points. Perhaps even winning percentages.
Nabuking (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be against anything that suggests the results across different voting systems are comparable. Hollth (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  it will not have been removed. It would have been archived, which can be accessed via the archived links at the top of this talk page. But in regards to your point of view, please remember that Wikipedia is not an excessive listing of statistics.  Wes Mouse ✒ 09:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margins 

message: There is a very excessive number of photos currently in the gallery section, to the extent that it is looking like photo-overkill and in violation of WP:NOTGALLERY. The detailed guidance outlined in regards to the image galleries policy states that images should be in moderation and not be a means to "shoehorn images into an article". Recommendation is to provide a link to commons, which has already been in place for years now. I've been to commons and given categorisation to all of the winners images to enable this function to work properly. However, upon further analysis, it seems that we can have an article purely on images (see Gallery of flags of dependent territories as an example). Should we be looking towards creating an article along those lines? Because just think how this very article is going to look when Eurovision hits 100. It is going to look a complete mess and overcrowded with images. Action needs to be taken now before it gets out of hand.
* We either have a cap on the maximum number of images to be shown (20 would be sufficient)
* Look into creating a gallery article
* Use the recommended process and use either the  or  - the latter already in use anyway.
Any views on this matter of urgency? Wes Mouse  T@lk 04:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive images in the gallery section 

message: Wayy too much vandelism already. Only needs one edit when all the results are given.  
DJBay123 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this page should just be locked forever. People are constantly vandalising it because they are salty their country didn't win. JochemvanHees (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we lock it for the rest of the day, or alteast semi protect it 

message: Change Cyprus' best position received from 5th to 2nd in "By Country" section. They got runner up in 2018. 2001:56A:F316:6000:CDCF:2639:220C:3299 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the table of winning entries, all languages are listed alongside the flag of the country associated with the language. This is misleading, the languages don't have flags themselves. Furthermore, the table is already full of flags (at least three per row), so the language flags should be removed. Thoughts? Lordtobi (✉) 18:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea 203.30.15.124 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags for languages 

message: Bring it back  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolef1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring Back best place by non-winning countries 

message: A user has added a list of deceased winners to the article. I believe that it is WP:TRIVIA and attempted to remove it. I do not see how knowing when each winner passed away adds to the article. It is irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is "who won the contest". The user is insistent that this unsourced material remain pending the outcome of this discussion, even though this is atypical and problematic for a WP:Featured List. Grk1011 (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this falls under non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, as being dead and winning Eurovision don't have much to do with one another. You might as well make a list of blue-eyed winners of the contest. So I, too, opt for removal if the author of that section doesn't clarify its purpose. JochemvanHees (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the reappearance of this table, I'd like to weigh in and I agree with both of you that it is unnecessary, and is both trivial and unrelated to the topic at hand. Information on death dates are included in the artist articles, so are easily accessible there, and I doubt anyone would suggest creating a "living winners" section either so the same criteria should apply here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of deceased winners 

message: A recent edit by an IP user grouped a bunch of cells in the winners table merely because they had the same content. In my opinion, this is very unnecessary, because it makes the table look kind of broken, I guess? Particularly with Ireland's victories in the mid ninetiees. But I can't find anything about it on the manual of style, so I'd like your opinions on this.
I do however think that there should be grouping in the 1969 contest, because that was one contest. But with the Irish victories, those were separate victories and should be listed separately, not as one. JochemvanHees (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with your consensus there. I feel having a single cell per winner/year, even if this results in adjacent cells with the same contents, is prefereable and makes the table easier to read. Like you said, having one cell for all the winners in 1969 works, but having merged cells spanning multiple years complicates things and makes it difficult to understand. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary grouping of cells in the table? 

message: I have lately seen several people adding the 2020 and 2021 editions to the table. I personally oppose this, as I have mentioned in my edit description: this is a list of winners, not a list of editions, so it doesn't make sense to include editions in which there is no winner (yet).
 I don't doubt that the information is correct. I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be on this page.
―JochemvanHees (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also be opposed to including 2021 in the table at present. As you mentioned this is a list of winners, not editions, so it's very much jumping the gun at this stage to include it in the table when it hasn't taken place yet. As for 2020 it may have some merit to be included as is in the table, for continuity purposes, but open to suggestions as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the 2020/2021 editions be listed? 

message: I've been reading over this list recently, and I've noticed that despite this list having featured status, there are no citations for any of the information in the main table. This would be concerning on any list, but given the page's status, their absence here is particularly problematic. Does anyone know if there are sources for all of the information listed in the table, including details like the point totals and languages? Without sources, much of that information should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, actually. I guess most of the information in the tables is copied straight from the year-specific articles, which do include citations. But it wouldn't hurt to add a ref column or something. I also feel like most of this article falls under WP:CALC; the same information is being presented in like a thousand different ways. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent lack of citations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi, Sims2aholic8, I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of not having the # of entries in the table of winners? It's as relevant as the margin of win. That information is also probably available elsewhere, but it makes sense to include it in the winners table, as it gives context for the win. The same is true for the number of entries each year. It gives context, as one can see how much the contest has developed over the years and better explains the meaning of a win each year. It's certainly a part of the info I was looking for when I was looking for this table, and when I saw it was missing, I've been going to each contest page individually to find that information. It's a lot of effort to get that info, and I think it should be more comfortably available to view in one list together with the winners. Darren.enlight (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, it's nice to know that the info is available in a list elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense to have two separate lists if one wants to compare this info with the winners each year. Darren.enlight (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do see your point here, which is why I have removed the runners-up details again. They were removed a long time ago and slowly have crept back onto this article, which I don't believe is warranted given this is meant to be a list of the winners. Not all lists should try to achieve all things, and details such as number of entries, runners-up etc., are already found elsewhere. The point of this list, as the title says, is to highlight the winning countries, entries, performers and songwriters, and other details would, in my opinion, be superfluous and be a detraction. If you still disagree and think we need to escalate this and gain wider consensus on this issue you are free to raise this point on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually agree with the removal of runners-up. If we add the entries that made it to #2, then why not add #3 as well? It potentially becomes way too much. But the number of entries in my opinion is different, it is a finite addition, and it illuminates an aspect of the win, not just of the contest. Take 1957, as a random example. The win is out of 10 entries. That's a different kind of win than the same country, The Netherlands, in 2019, when it won out of 41 entries. They both obviously count, but the context is different, and many people wishing to review the ESC winners list might want that context or find it helpful, while a runner-up is a lot less relevant to understanding the win. If you feel we need a wider consensus, we absolutely can go for that, though I would appreciate some help, as I've never added something up for debate to a project page... Darren.enlight (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've opened a new discussion here. Please do contribute to the discussion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Darren.enlight (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Number of entries to the table 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I find myself taking some issue with this column, which appears to be a recent addition. Looking through its contents I find it somewhat misleading, since it's trying to compare winning scores from a variety of different voting systems which I don't believe are comparable, and it also presents information out of context without giving enough explanation of the nuances between winning scores. In addition I feel like it might fall foul of WP:NOTSTATS as well, so I would suggest removing this column. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point actually. I guess it was added to make the points more comparable, but strictly speaking the values still aren't comparable. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand that point too, but when you're comparing a voting system where e.g. there's a ranking system and at least ten countries get points (i.e. 1975-2015) compared to one where each country could give all their votes to a single country (i.e. 1957-1961), the actual score a country gets compared to the maximum will be kinda warped compared to what is actually more likely. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried viewing the table on mobile yet? Eek. I would support removing the following columns: "date", "language", "points", and "percentage of maximum possible points". This is a list of winners, so we should focus on that aspect without the clutter. The former are already in tables on their relevant respective articles: History of the Eurovision Song Contest for "date" and List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest for "language"; the latter two are trying to be perhaps too analytical? Grk1011 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point! I've gone ahead and removed the "host city", "date", "points" and "percentage of maximum possible points" columns; I've kept "language" for now as I feel it's still somewhat pertinent to this article, since the list article only shows the years in which a song in a specific language won the contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes "host city" made sense as well. In general, I'm a little concerned about unsourced languages given that some Eurovision articles have been challenged in that respect in the past. I think it makes sense to be here per your reasoning, but I think the issue will come up again. Grk1011 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's very true as well to be fair, and this is meant to be a featured list as well (although it could do with quite a bit of work). I've removed this column as well, but yeah I think this is probably far from over as an issue. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Percentage of maximum possible points" column 

message: Chanel is the TRUE WINNER of Eurovision 2022. Is it not a vandalism. Ukraine only won for pity of the war. Justice for CHANEL, please! Eurofan All Years (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read WP:ABOUT, WP:HOW and WP:NOT so you can understand what is and what is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Changing the winner of a contest when they did not actually win said contest is indeed vandalism, as . If you continue to be disruptive you will be blocked from editing. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurovision 2022 

message: the information is present on wikipedia already. somevody just needs to compile it into a list. it is of statistical importance. 84.208.108.74 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it of statistical importance? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

text: See WP:NOTSTATS. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  you should add a list of how many people have won from each start number 

message: Lots of contest winners have competed more than once (ex. Carola [winner for Sweden 1991] also competed in 1983 and 2006, Dana International [winner for Israel 1998] also competed in 2011, Corry Brokken [winner for the Netherlands in 1957] also competed in 1956 and 1958). I suggest the addition of a table listing winning artists with multiple entries, the year they won, the other years they entered, and the non-winning songs they competed with. Maybe it could include a column with placements of the non-winning entries (Carola came 5th in 2006, Lena [winner for Germany in 2010] came 10th in 2011, etc), but that might also be better left to the pages for the individual contests by year. It's a big deal when a winner comes back to the contest (see: Loreen in 2023, Alexander Rybak in 2018), so I think it's noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. At the very least, I'm not aware of an official table listing these entries, and I think it could fit well on this page.  Wishmaker05 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the information is interesting, however the purpose of this list article is to highlight the contest winners and their winning entries. Expanding this to include every entry where a former winner returned and competed without winning is in my opinion beyond the scope of this article and would be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of other entries by contest winners