Template talk:Eurovision Song Contest

message: Having the host cities listed in the navbox is clearly causing some concerns with a small selection of users, and this concern needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and in a peaceful manner. The users who have raised an issue have not provided any alternative proposal to house such information on host cities within the navbox template. Therefore I shall put forward an alternative solution.
There is the article List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest in existence which needs to be shown somewhere on the template, just like the other articles on winners, history, OGAE etc. Perhaps the alternative work-around on this is to have Host cities added to the (in the |above =  parameter) of the navbox. That way there is no list of cities, the chances of "navbox-spam" across city articles is significantly reduced, and the navbox still contains its original data on host cities, with the link to take the general viewer to the host city article. Wes Mouse  T@lk 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. No such user (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

text: (As an example of how WP:UNDUE applies, see this version of the Cinecitta article)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1

message: Add Entries Norfin (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill be more than happy to do this for you, but could you maybe specify in a clearer way you want to change or where you want to insert the link? L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018 

message: Should Eurovision Asia Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest be added to the template, and if so would it be worth starting a Spin-offs section to include them in? Dunarc (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin-offs 

message: It seems misleading to me to include Lebanon in the "eligible" section simply because they selected an entry once, when there are plenty of other eligible countries who have never participated. I think Lebanon should be in the "inactive" section. dummelaksen (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon in the "eligible" section 

message: you moved Belarus to the "Former" section since they are no longer an EBU member, although I actually interpreted this as meaning "former countries" (as in dissolved ones), rather than "former EBU members". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that was the former definition for that grouping, however I felt it required updating. I think keeping Belarus in "inactive" is somewhat misleading now they their only broadcaster is no longer an EBU member, therefore preventing them from participating in the future. For me I think the differentiator is that inactive countries are those who can participate but choose not to, whereas former countries are those that are unable to participate. It's only now that there has been this expulsion that has caused the rethink for me, but it is an unprecedented situation so it's not as if there is precedent. Eager to hear your thoughts on this however if you disagree. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm fair point, although at least I don't think that Belarus should be grouped together with Serbia & Montenegro and Yugoslavia, since those are gone for a completely different reason. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean yes and no. Yes S&M and Yugoslavia are former countries in the sense they no longer exist, they are also former participants of ESC that are unable to return, just like Belarus now. There are nuances but fundamentally the three countries are all unable to participate for different reasons. Perhaps "former" now is the wrong word to use, given what you said about former countries. Is there a better word we could use if we were to group these countries together? I don't think having Belarus in its own category is right but I also don't think they should be listed with the other inactive countries that are making a choice not to participate. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been following this very closely, but couldn't Belarus rejoin sometime in the future? They would have a much harder time than other inactive countries because they would first need to have a broadcaster again, but it's not impossible like S&M and Yugoslavia are (naturally as they don't exist anymore). A lot of the sources we see for this are very ESC-centric, as if the penalty is solely about not participating in Eurovision. That is not the case and ESC is a peripheral "punishment". In fact, from what I've seen over the last few years, the broadcaster has a history of being relatively incompetent at choosing a valid entry to begin with. Taking a few steps back, remember that the navbox is not supposed to be explaining anything, just aiding in navigation between articles. I think it should be simplified to group "countries that currently participate" and "countries that have articles but do not currently participate". Maybe "Active" and "Other". Grk1011 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we consider the navbox as being purely for navigation then there isn't really a need for a "Former" group anyways. Those groups are there so that it's easier to find a certain article, and I don't think many people want to specifically know about the countries that no longer exist in Eurovision. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes from the standpoint of navigation I would agree that "Active" and "Other" would most likely work best. I think the current structure of "Inactive" and "Former" is to align with the key used in List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest (which I also amended to change Belarus to "Former"), but I don't think this alignment in the navbox is necessary. There are clearly differences between Belarus and Serbia and Montenegro/Yugoslavia given that the latter two have ceased to exist, and while yes being expelled from the EBU does have much broader and serious impacts on BTRC beyond Eurovision, such as in accessing EBU news and sports broadcasts, I think listing Belarus in a group with the former Balkan countries as those countries that are unable to participate in Eurovision, rather than as a conscious choice on the broadcaster, makes sense, at least to me. Of course this is a completely new situation and so it's unprecedented what we should do here, so reaching a consensus on labels and groups might work best in the long run should something similar happen again. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former countries or former EBU members?