Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests

HomeTalkArticle
AlertsAssessmentQuality
ArticlesPopular
PagesFormatting
& GuidanceMembersUserboxesArchive
(WP Eurovision)

Standardising host city bidding table formats

A while ago, before the list of bidding cities for the Eurovision Song Contest 2027 was established, I noticed that the table listing cities that had expressed interest in hosting was removed based on the reasoning that "it is customary to only have actual bids in table". That seemed reasonable to me. However, upon examining previous contest articles, this has not been an established practice – articles for all editions this decade have included cities that expressed interest but never submitted a bid. The current guidance in the Format and Guides section here is defined quite broadly.

I would therefore propose limiting tables to cities that actually submitted bids, with expressions of interest mentioned only in prose. As far as I am aware, cities that never progressed beyond an expression of interest are generally not notable for that fact alone, hence this change would also align with Wikipedia's principles of due weight and avoidance of indiscriminate inclusion of information.

Also, while having previously hosted the contest or adjacent events (such as national finals or the junior variant) is likely useful context for the "Notes" column in such tables, I am not sure this applies to examples such as the Geneva International Motor Show, the 2014 Davis Cup semi-finals or the 2019 Laver Cup (all noted for Geneva in 2025, but there are more such cases). Should notes be limited to endorsements from local or municipal governments and related events? Agwjkl (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd support removing cities that merely expressed interest but never bid, however, there is an issue where sometimes it's not known exactly which cities bid to host. Motor shows are not exactly relevant to this, but something like a sports tournament, based on the scale of production needed, is likely relevant — IмSтevan ^talk 13:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Agwjkl, I'm in alignment with you (and am the editor who removed the info before). Unless an entity actually bids, it does feel a bit of a stretch to include 'interest', which is loosely defined in general. I've seen city councilors, mayors, tourism execs, etc. say they're interested in bidding, but it's hard to parse out if those individuals are even in positions to make those calls; we don't know the specific politics of each city. I like the approach of table for actual bids and mentions of interest in prose. Grk1011 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Grk1011 and Agwjkl on this, I believe bid tables are relevant only for cities which are known to have actually bid. Everything else should be included in summary in prose; if this means that, as in the case of 2026, where only two cities actually bid, then I think a table listing only two cities is rather redundant, and therefore everything should be placed in prose. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh I very much disagree with that. Even two cities merit a table, for consistency and easy overview's sake — IмSтevan ^talk 19:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not have a particularly strong opinion on this. I would personally support removing the tables altogether, as in all cases I have come across, the relevant information could be sufficiently covered in prose. That said, I recognise that such a change would probably be too drastic and, in any case, I get both your and @ImStevan's points. Agwjkl (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not come across any such cases myself, but if they do exist, I think it would be better to omit the table and simply summarise the available information in prose. If we do not know which cities submitted bids, that could indicate that the process (or at least how it was communicated publicly) was different from what we have seen in past years, in which case presenting a table of presumed bidders would create a false equivalence with contests where the bidding process is actually documented.

As for the "Notes" column, I now strongly lean towards limiting it to previous contest-related events, such as the Eurovision Song Contest, Junior Eurovision, national finals, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere, as venues host countless events every year and there is currently no clear or objective basis for deciding which unrelated ones should be mentioned. Without some form of criterion, the selection inevitably becomes arbitrary; in the vast majority of cases, information about other events is already covered in the venue's own article. Agwjkl (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ESC Gabe

Can we consider Gabe a reliable source? It seems to me that his posts/claims have a perfect track record of coming true, ie. he only posts about things that end up being announced soon afterwards. I think we should be allowed to cite his posts in articles — IмSтevan ^talk 11:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No, we can't per:

1) WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RSSELF = "Self-published material, such as books, newsletters, [...], and social media posts, are largely not acceptable as sources."

2) "things that end up being announced soon afterwards." = WP:CRYSTAL. Until the official announcement is made, everything is mere speculation, so it is not acceptable. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Ferclopedio on this, it would be a massive violation of SELFPUBLISH and RSSELF, just as it would be if we were to use any self-published social media creator/influencer accounts as secondary sources. As far as I can tell, although ESCGabe does have a reputation as being a reliable creator within the ESC fandom, and may have been referenced/interviewed by media outlets in the past, that still doesn't affect the issues around using self-published content such as this. We should always be using independent publications for our secondary sources, and definitely not relying on social media creators. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Druk Dra

I've started a discussion on merging Druk Dra into Bhutan in the Eurovision Song Contest Asia — IмSтevan ^talk 13:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Druk Dra, pt2

So, the EurovisionAsia's site's JSON actually shows the results. Should this alone be considered a proper reference?
"JSON data". api.eurovisionasia.com. European Broadcasting Union. 11 August 2026. Archived from the original on 12 August 2026.
— IмSтevan ^talk 11:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it has legitimacy as a primary source. It is literally what the results page queried when showing the totals. I couldn't archive the page itself, since it only showed (part of) the results if you had voted and had a specific cookie. But every other source's claims were based on this very data.  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  22:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit requests for Template:Infobox song contest national year

Good day! I want to make it known that I have submitted multiple edit requests for the template at Template:Infobox song contest national year (talk page here). The first edit request is to make the template available for the participating countries of the Eurovision Song Contest Asia, while the second request is for maintenance purposes. Regards, Relayed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

South Korea or Republic of Korea

The EBU and ENA seem to be using "Republic of Korea" exclusively when talking about this country's participation. In line with what we currently do with Czechia, should we be referring to this country as "South Korea" in a Eurovision Asia setting? — IмSтevan ^talk 10:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, we have a template issue, where {{Esc|South Korea|Asia|name=Republic of Korea}} produces South Korea instead of Republic of Korea . — IмSтevan ^talk 11:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd say WP:Commonname, so South Korea. Much like how the football team page is titled South Korea national football team with "The South Korea national football team ...; recognized as Korea Republic by FIFA)" as the opening sentence. -- AxG / ✉  15:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

"South Korea" is the common name: South Korea Ferclopedio (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@AxG and Ferclopedio: Okay, but then it seems like there is inconsistency in how we refer to countries in a Eurovision context; Czechia is the term we use as in a Eurovision context, despite Czech Republic being the agreed on common name en.wiki-wide. So why would the same principle not apply to South Korea, which is referred to as Republic of Korea in a Eurovision context? — IмSтevan ^talk 07:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: as well — IмSтevan ^talk 10:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I was about to concede to the point, but Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest is the current name of the current article. I'm not really part of this Wikiproject but is there a project-specific manual of style for this? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we ever wrote it down as a part of out MOS, but we do refer to the country as Czechia in articles, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2026, with the discussion having been led here. This is why the article you brought up states "Czech Republic". I'm gonna reopen the discussion, as it's been 3 years — IмSтevan ^talk 14:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Just because there is an "official" name being used doesn't mean that this is the most commonly used name within that context. Fan media, as far as I can see, still refers to the nation competing in ESC Asia as "South Korea". There is also a massive difference between this instance and the Czechia/Czech Republic examples you provide, given the political reality of the Korean peninsula being divided and two different countries claiming sole use of the word "Korea". I think there is likely to be more confusion for the reader if we jettison the South Korea label just for the sake of following the "official" name; just as the Olympics and World Cup articles consistently use North and South Korea for and within their articles, even if the IOC and FIFA recognise these nations under their "official" names, I believe the same approach should be made here. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I concede my point, you're right — IмSтevan ^talk 13:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Czech Republic to Czechia

Previous discussion

I propose that in all articles from 2023 onwards, which includes the article titles, we refer to this country exclusively as Czechia. When talking about Eurovision, to me, it seems like most sources swapped to this name. This is in line with Wikipedia's policy, as this is exclusively within a Eurovision context. We waited for 3 years to see if the commonname will change, and, at least in a Eurovision context, it has. — IмSтevan ^talk 14:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If you believe it "is in line with Wikipedia's policy", then please actually cite the specific policy, rather than being vague about this. I believe WP:COMMONNAME is fairly clear on this point, the article is named Czech Republic, not Czechia, and therefore I believe Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest and related sub-articles should remain as such from a consistency point of view until any Wikipedia-wide name changing occurs. I understand this policy relates specifically to article titles though, and how this works within articles is probably another question, so if you have any concrete proposals then please raise these, because I don't believe it's clear what is being asked, at least to me, since all 'ESC by year' articles from 2023 already use "Czechia" exclusively. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@MDEire: Of course, sorry for not elaborating earlier. WP:COMMONNAME outlines general rules that are meant to be followed when naming articles, but also gives freedom to communities based on the topics they cover:

There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.

When titling articles in specific fields or with respect to particular problems, there is often a previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.

When it comes to the first point I cited, it allows editors and communities to reach a consensus differing from that of the entire wiki to determine what the best title for an article covering a topic they're familiar with is since it's their expertise, if I can call it that.

Regarding the second point, in the first sentence it repeats this sentiment that when talking about specific topics, a different consensus can be reached. Additionally, I believe that it is in the readers' best interest to have the title correspond to what Eurovision and non-Eurovision focused media refer to the country as within the Eurovision context, as well as the organisation itself, that being Czechia.

Google search gives the following number of results when talking about Czechia in Eurovision:

Number of results

Settings	Search query
	Czech Republic Eurovision	Czechia Eurovision
Any time, all results	1.230.000	936.000
Any time, verbatim	412.000	910.000
2023-today	633.000	541.000

Even when I did searches for "Czech Republic Eurovision" and scrolled through the results, despite it getting more hits, all of the search results were referring to the country as "Czechia" regardless of being fan media or mainstream media, apart from Wikipedia pages or pages that discussed events prior to 2023. Not even mentioning the fact that the gap between "all time, all results" searches is only 300.000, despite the fact that the name "Czechia" (in the contest) has only been used for 4 years, whilst the name "Czech Republic" (in the contest) has been used from 2007 until 2022, 15 years.

I hope I've made the point I was trying to make.

Regarding your final question, I was talking about article titles specifically, if this wasn't clear from this reply — IмSтevan ^talk 13:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

From what I can see elsewhere on English Wikipedia, the only other area where Czechia has been used within article titles is within ice hockey: Czechia men's national ice hockey team et al. So yes I will concede your point that in some circumstances there is precedent for splitting from other articles if the consensus is reached that another name is the more common one. I think certainly within ESC fandom it is getting to that point, if not already so. I however would have some concerns about having two different names across the history of "Czechia/Czech Republic in ESC" articles. I do not believe the situation is analogous to North Macedonia (and previously (FYR) Macedonia), because the country never actually changed names. Instead a Czech government decided to make the short form of the country the more "favoured" version in English; Czechia and the Czech Republic have always existed within the English language, it's just that for a long time, and still depending on the source and the various style guides, that the long form name was more well used and understood.

With that said, I am neutral on whether to keep our article titles as Czech Republic or rename to Czechia, I can see the pros and cons of both. However my current inclination is that whatever solution for article titles is eventually adopted should be retroactively applied to all articles in the series going back to 2007, while retaining the name form used in each individual contest consistent within those articles (i.e. Czech Republic before 2023 and Czechia from then onwards). mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur, but would be fine with any solution for editions pre-2023 — IмSтevan ^talk 21:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

When Macedonia was only "Macedonia", it was presented at the contest as "FYR Macedonia", but we have never used the "FYR Macedonia" nor in links nor in articles names, and this happened for many years, we sticked to "Macedonia", and we only changed to "North Macedonia" for the years after the adoption of the new name.

The Czech Republic is still the official and common name of the country, and is still used everywhere in Wikipedia, and "Czechia" is only the favorite name of a government, that can change with a new government.

I don't see the point of the necessity of changing the articles names to "Czechia in.." in any case, and for those searching for "Czechia in...", we have the redirects to the current articles names, so they will be able to find them. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

1980 Austrian commentator

In the Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest page, you indicated this in the Commentators and spokespersons paragraph:

"Between the 1970 and 1998 contests, every contest was commentated by Austrian radio journalist and actor Ernst Grissemann, with the exception of the 1979 and 1990 contests."

Well, it seems that Grissemann did not commente in 1980 either: I recently found a video of the 1980 Austrian commentary on YouTube, and the commentator says the following from 1:36 to 1:41:

"Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. Aus Den Haag in Holland begrüße Sie heute Günther Ziesel." [Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is Günther Ziesel welcoming you today from The Hague in the Netherlands.]

A former IP user also said in 2015 that the Kleine Zeitung newspaper also credited Ziesel as that year's commentator, but sadly, their online archive is dating to 2016, and we had to pay to see their full newspaper archive.

By the way, I'm sure that videos of old contests could be helpful to identify unknown commentators and spokespersons (only if the commentators introduce themselves or name the spokespersons).

Vintageland (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit requests

Can anybody approve the requests made on Template_talk:Infobox_song_contest_national_year? We kinda really need those implemented — IмSтevan ^talk 17:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)