Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

participation map needs adding

I don't know how to add it or edit it could someone add it and confirm Cyprus and Finland and no return for Russia and Belarus. TommyESC2 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand

So there are heaps of articles going around about a bid for New Zealand to debut at ESC 2024, but I am unsure if they should be added, since the sources are quite vague about how much involvement TVNZ has in this bid, or if TVNZ is involved at all, and as such I'd like some other opinions on the subject matter. Violatie (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that probably means that TVNZ is not involved. They aren't even broadcasting the show and I haven't been able to find any instance of them reporting on Eurovision since 2021. So saying that New Zealand as a whole is doing a bid is misleading.

It looks like so far this is just a wave of news reports on Two Hearts's stunt, but if it is a continued effort then I guess it would be worth mentioning. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the matter, New Zealand won't appear for now but if more news sources and even TVNZ get involved, then maybe it just will be added to the article. Violatie (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Participation map

I created a participation map for 2024, but am unsure how it is added to the infobox. I couldn't find any field for the map file in the template documentation of the infobox. Does the file just automatically get added on the main article page (by somehow checking if a file with the name "ESC 2024 Map.svg" exists) or am I missing something here? Mr. Thistle (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You should highlight Russia and Belarus as yellow and then it'd be accurate for now, as for your original question, I suggest looking at the JESC 2023 draft, which contains a map of its currently confirmed countries, and it should show you how the map was put into the article. Violatie (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The infobox gets the map data from its subpages; I created the page Template:Infobox song contest/Eurovision Song Contest 2024 so it should show up now. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft status

Shouldn't this page at this point get moved over to the main namespace? Back in late January, when it was last rejected, it merely featured a short section on Luxembourg's (back then unconfirmed) participation as well as a now removed section on Bulgaria, had exactly one source and an introduction section with very speculative wording.

Now however, it contains information of multiple confirmed participants (weather through official statements or indirectly through the announcement of the national finals), further information on multiple yet to be confirmed countries, one broadcaster announcing that it would broadcast the event and contains multiple sources. The rejection reason of missing reliable sources for this article should no longer apply. Mr. Thistle (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Eurovision 2024.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Date

@Dimsar01: regarding your reversion, I don't think it makes sense to use the 2023 rules to confirm something about the 2024 contest, because they review the rules every year (the executive supervisor said that just last week). They could easily decide to hold the contest earlier than usual, like they've done in the past, and just change that sentence in the rules. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

one country shouldn't be there

Someone edited in Andalusia in the confirmed countries section - is this just a salty prank? Vesparaw07 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it was. If you see someone adding a country without a source feel free to remove it again. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Aren't we being a bit strict on which countries can be added to the Other Countries Section

I see a lot of deletions into the section at the moment. I think that we need to be less strict about the countries we add to it. I believe that as long as we have some information about an intent to participate, the country should be added.

One example is Monaco set a budget aside to participate in the 2023 contest following a new brodcaster being launched. This air of the brodcaster was delayed and so they weren't able to participate, but I think that it makes sense to write about this, as it's a natural thought that they would attempt to participate as soon as they aired the brodcaster. Thomediter (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Per Wikipedia WP:OR guidelines, the source would need to directly say that. We can't draw conclusions outside of what has been published. Grk1011 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The case of Australia

I think it's worth discussing how we should tackle the stands of Austraia's participation. Lately, they have been removed from the Other Countries Section.

I don't think this is the right thing to do. We all know Australia's situation is completely different from the other countries.

Right now we know that Australia's "license" to participate has become inactive, as their deal with the EBU ran until 2023.

I could imagine a lot of curious readers going to this page to see if there have been any news about Australia. So I think that it would be beneficial to add the country to the Other Countries Section. I think it's makes sense it to inform readers about the fact that they had a contract that has now run out, and currently there are no advancements to their status. In that way we hint that the page will update their status as soon as we know. I really think we should have at least some info about Australia, considering how special their situation is. Thomediter (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a source for that type of information though. We add things as they are reported without drawing any conclusions that aren't directly published by a reliable source. If someone wants to know about Australia and comes to this page to find out, the lack of the country's name on the page likely means there is no update (and really, there is no news on what they'll do). Grk1011 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I still believe that the information of Australia's agreement having run out for this contest is worthy information. Thomediter (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That would definitely be relevant for Australia's Eurovision article as it pertains to general participation facts. I don't believe they've made a statement about 2024 yet, however. Grk1011 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair point, and I understand if this is what will be agreed upon. But I also have to say that all in all I think it's worth it to inform about the situation on this page as well.

I think a lot of readers could go to this page to see what the status about their participation is, and I am not sure that enough readers are aware that the information can be found on a different page instead, also considering that the page which contains the information is not linked to from Eurovision Song Contest 2024. Thomediter (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should delete the UK from "other countries"

The linked article and the paragraph on Wikipedia are talking about the contest in the UK for the second time in a row in case of British victory in 2023. Well, it didn't happen and Sweden won the contest, so the ESC will take place in Sweden. The information isn't relevant currently. Adir David (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is that this implied/implies their participation in 2024. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 09:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping UK, and I agree with your logic.

But couldn't we also have Monaco too then?

We have a page saying that they were allocating funds for an ESC 2023 participation. However the air of the brodcaster got delayed, preventing a 2023 participation. But it's greatly implied that Monaco would try to join the contest as soon as they can. Thomediter (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Per WP:OR, we aren't allowed to use sources to imply things that aren't explicitly stated. The source would also need to say that they also plan to participate next year regardless of their offer to host. If it doesn't say that, then it's not actually a reference for participation. Grk1011 (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

With this logic, UK should be removed too, but then the page would become almost empty.

I thin we should consider relax about our interpretation on WP:OR Thomediter (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly an option. It's a Wikipedia policy. There's nothing wrong with waiting until there is factual information. There's no rush. Grk1011 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it really OR when it has never been the case that a host country hasn’t taken part? I’m not even sure that’s possible. In other words, does the natural consequence of a statement need to also be stated? 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 16:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well it's clearly a WP:SYNTH issue, by using one article about one set of facts to draw a conclusion about a completely different set of facts. As Grk1011 says, there's no rush on this, it's better to wait for a reliable source that covers all the information relevant to the 2024 contest than to use outdated sources to try and force a point through synthesis. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Other countries

Please keep in mind the consensus from prior discussions regarding when a country is typically added to the "other countries" section. Here are two of the most recent conversations: [1], [2] and the conclusion: Other countries: Criteria for inclusion to be modified so only countries where an attempt to participate has been revealed, with other blanket statements from broadcasters/politicians to be rejected. Grk1011 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, makes plenty of sense, but why is Andorra removed of all of the countries on this list? They literally found money to return, and for now it ultimately depends on if RTVA will want to use it for an Andorran return.

I also feel that removing many of these countries which could return will make the public less informed. Say they want to see who could return to ESC, their first choice is always Wikipedia, but then that info isn’t really there (in this instance, only North Macedonia is listed), so what do they do? They may look for Eurovoix articles but they don’t always have the information. The removal of certain countries with relevant info, specifically Andorra, Faroe Islands, and I’d argue Monaco and Bulgaria, makes people less informed in general. 2001:8004:1202:1268:7DC3:1AC6:C993:9066 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you here. I do understand that some countries isn't worth adding, but I also believe we are being a bit harsh on what is required. I think a lot of readers go to this page to see any information about which countries might return or not, and I don't think it hurts Wikipedia much to have some of that information, even if it's not much.

However I also agree with some requirements having to be met. Thomediter (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, I believe that Andorra and the Faroe Islands certainly should not have been removed, and Monaco should be added again once TVMONACO releases more information on the topic (or when the broadcaster receives EBU membership). Andorra had a similar situation in 2022, and was added to the Other countries tab in 2022, and Faroe Islands had previously been interested in EBU membership back in 2016, and was added to the Other countries tab in that article too, so how is it different here? These sources are relevant to their countries return/debut, suggest a possible return/debut THIS YEAR, and provide relatively in depth information on the subject. Violatie (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a news site, and while the purpose of Wikipedia is to include current and up-to-date information we should not engage in speculation or synthesis where the references and sources are not present to back up those claims. Everything within the 2024 article needs to be relevant to the 2024 contest, using information from previous years to back up claims about 2024, or using speculation to draw together multiple points to make one conclusion (the definition of synthesis) is not permitted. In the case of Andorra, one person saying they have money to bring the country back breaches the synthesis criteria as it is not explicitly related to the 2024 contest. The same goes for Faroe Islands, as a broadcaster potentially joining the EBU to potentially join the contest is pure speculation at this point. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For Andorra, okay fair points, but for the Faroe Islands it has been specified that they intend to join the EBU to participate at ESC, with the best case scenario being a debut at the 2024 contest, I'd argue this is relevant to the contest, no matter how unlikely it is. Violatie (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia and Belarus

Is it relevant to include Russia and Belarus in the "Non-EBU members" section given they won't participate due to EBU withdrawal (Russia) and suspension (Belarus)?

KayeL

13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No it's not relevant, because as you say they are not members of the EBU. While they may be former participants, for the same reason that we don't list every other country in the world as "non-participants" we shouldn't list Russia and Belarus unless there is specific information about those countries which is related to the 2024 contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

But Croatia and the United Kingdom also don't have information relevant to the 2024 contest specifically, and yet they're in the article too, so what is the real difference and where do we draw the line? Since you seem to be okay with the United Kingdom and Croatia remaining on the article, you should be okay with adding Russia and Belarus. The thing is, if we were to follow truly "relevant" information on the 2024 contest, Croatia, the UK, Russia, and Belarus would all NOT be in this article, meanwhile we would add back others like the Andorra who have a bucket load of information referring to the 2024 contest (and a whole lot more than the UK or Croatia). Violatie (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Croatia their inclusion is based on a three-year agreement that includes 2024, so therefore it is relevant because it could potentially cover this contest, but they are not in the provisional list because that would be a WP:SYNTH issue. For the United Kingdom the mention is about the BBC potentially hosting again in 2024, so again this is relevant to this article; this alongside the reference to continued high standards in future contests makes it relevant for inclusion, but again would cause SYNTH issues to take that as a confirmation of participation. The reason behind not including Belarus or Russia is because there is nothing pertinent to the 2024 contest itself regarding these, as the broadcasters (which can't take part because they're no longer EBU members) haven't released any statements on the 2024 contest specifically. As for Andorra, the "information" is mostly rumours and speculation moreso than anything else, and the broadcaster itself has said there is "no news" about future participation in the contest. The push by Susanna Georgi and others to get Andorra back in the contest is relevant to Andorra's participation as a whole, but not necessarily for the 2024 contest; this is why it is included in Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest, and same goes for Russia and Belarus itself as a whole for the reasons behind their future non-participation being located within Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest and Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Croatia, this agreement isn’t only about Dora but other HRT events, and Dora could still go ahead without ESC participation or be cancelled altogether, and I’d argue that the information simply isn’t really relevant, since it is also rehashed information as already knew about since the agreement was signed. As for the United Kingdom, it just isn’t relevant now, since the UK isn’t (likely to be) hosting Eurovision 2024, and I would argue should not be in the article anymore, and the obvious reason the BBC would want to host Eurovision is because it does the country good, something that could not be said for a country like Moldova, if it won and had to host the next year’s edition. 120.158.15.191 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Bulgaria

So on Twitter, BNT announced that Bulgaria is not participated in Eurovision (indefinite withdrawal, like Luxembourg did for 30 years) but then they later released a tweet where they said the last time Bulgaria participated in Eurovision was with Victoria in 2021 (which was later deleted), so would this count as a valid confirmation of non-participation, or not? 120.158.8.249 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the Broadcasters current situation and attitude towards the contest, a return in 2024 seems most unlikely. TommyESC2 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, however the participation map continues to be changed to not include Bulgaria as non-participating, which is quite annoying. Violatie (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Bnt on Twitter said later on the it's too early to say if they will for sure compete in the contest 212.21.129.138 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Bidding phase information

It's been 2 weeks since Sweden won, and typically at this point the article includes information on the bidding stage (see this revision of the ESC 2022 page), but it does not currently, aside from a table. Would it make sense to add information about it? Wasabi OS (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have slightly expanded the section, but considering the smaller number of potential bidders and locations I don’t think we need to go any further. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 14:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Greece

Can someone add greece to the contesting countries list?, Source: https://escbubble.com/2023/02/greece-considering-a-new-national-final-for-eurovision-2024 Ropesman (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This information is already present in the "Other countries"; since it's from a third-party source (original source here) and not directly from the broadcaster it is not a explicit confirmation that Greece will participate in Eurovision, and claiming as such would fall under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the infobox contain information about Non-Returning, Returning and Debuting countries before the full list is announced?

I was wondering why we can make a list of the brodcasters who have announced that the country will be partcipating in the contest, but we cannot add countries who are returning to the infobox. I don't see what the issue would be in making it easily visible to see which countries are returning. I understand that some argues that this information shouldn't be visible in the infobox until the full participation list is announced, but I fail to understand why.

Should we change it, if not - then why? Thomediter (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

For me, the reason why I don't like it is because saying "Returning: Luxembourg" makes it look like Luxembourg is the only country returning. But that's not certain until the full list of participants is revealed. Besides, all these statements regarding participation are always still provisional at this stage, and provisional information shouldn't be presented as facts in an infobox. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to add that this specific information about Luxembourg isn't provisional; it has been announced by the EBU so it's as certain as the official list of participating countries. Of course Luxembourg can change their mind but so can any country even after the official list is revealed, which has happened many times. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 15:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point.

What if we added something like this , to the information, then it wouldn't lead to the confusion you expressed your worries about, whilist still informing the readers that Luxembourg is returning. Thomediter (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to that, though I'd go for something like (as of May 2023) instead of a footnote. Note though that there has been a large discussion about this a few years ago at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020/Archive 1 § The infobox and the addition of returning / withdrawing / debuting countries, which involved a lot more people. If feel like we should also consult them if we want to change things. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw the discussion 2 days ago and thought to suggest the same, an automated "as of date" in the infobox, and as I remembered your experiance Jochem to better material with such templates in the past. I thought if benefits to suggest as I saw you and others were more reluctant at first; now that you suggest the template, and to gather one more view, I join to support this as an update in the infobox which also summarizes the developing article material as Dimsar said about current confirmations, as well as for withdrawals and debutes. אומנות (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree a change could be made to the template to avoid workarounds in cases like this. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 18:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I also support keeping the infobox updated with returning/withdrawing/debuting nations in real time rather than waiting until the list of participants is released. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the problem relates to "keeping it updated". Can you guarantee that it will always be accurate and nothing will change over the next 6 months? There is prior consensus that returning, debuting, and non-returning countries should not be added until the final participants list is published. To change that would require more input from editors and a longer feedback window. Grk1011 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Can't you ask the same question about the provisional list of participants in the article body? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a different case as it's a section that clearly states it's a provisional list. What is being asked here is to shoehorn in preliminary information into an infobox field that always shows complete/final information. What is it that we're trying to gain from this? We're already running into some pushback from a widespread over-emphasis on tables over prose; this doesn't help move us in the right direction. I think there is a general want from editors for Wikipedia to be the "source" of the most up-to-date information as planning for the next edition progresses, but that is expressly not Wikipedia's role or mission. Grk1011 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The solution of having an updated template as Jochem van Hees has made is a better idea, if you ask me then.

I just don't see why we can be ready to list the provisional countries, but not be ready to inform which of those countries are returning or debuting. If we just make it clear in the infobox that the countries listed as non-returning, returning or debuting are a provisional list, I don't see a problem with having it. Thomediter (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging some editors who were involved in the previous discussion: JKOkay, IceWelder, Alexeyus, Alucard 16, dummelaksen. I have made a sandbox edit to the infobox template to allow adding the date of the last update; this is what it could look like (though I'd be open for suggestions). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I like it, and would be happy to see it replacing the old one. Thomediter (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal taste here, but I think it would be more elegant if we had it look something like this:

Participants
(Provisional list as of May 2023)

Already seems a good solution though! 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

To be fair if you ask me the template can be designed multiple ways. As long as we can agree to inform about the change in countries, it's an ok from me. Thomediter (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the previous consensus around keeping the infobox clear of provisional information entirely. As Grk1011 points out, I think some of the push to have this information included as early as possible within the infobox, even when things can and are likely to change, is down to a drive to make Wikipedia seen as the one-stop-shop for everything Eurovision related, which it shouldn't be (see WP:NOTNEWS). We shouldn't forget as well the main purpose of any infobox which is to summarise, not supplant, information which already exists in the article (per MOS:INFOBOX). It is not imperative that everything needs to be in the infobox, only the key facts in summary form. While it is currently a fact that Luxembourg has been announced as a returning country for 2024, there may be additional countries which could return as well, and although it seems unlikely, there could be changes within the Luxembourgish broadcaster that could also prevent them from taking part. There have been previous instances where countries have confirmed for participating and then pulled out later on, before the deadline for entries has passed. My point is, it doesn't hurt anyone to keep the infobox clear of details until we are as sure as we can be that these are the full facts being presented to us, and I believe including one country at this early stage could lead readers to draw incorrect conclusions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"We shouldn't forget as well the main purpose of any infobox which is to summarise, not supplant, information which already exists in the article (per MOS:INFOBOX)." Here you are talking about the infobox in general, there is no reason that the infobox shouldn't include specific information at one point, but include that same information at a later point.

The idea of including the countries so far that have declared that they will not return, return or debut - is to make it easily readable which countries are the making a comeback, and which countries are not, and this should be easily visible all year round.

As long as we have information in the infobox that states that the list are provisional, there is no reason not to make it easily visible which countries are returning. Thomediter (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand from linked Junior-discussion some see the infobox as finalized compared to the article's body but the infobox in this instance parallels key developments of a futuristic article focusing participation updates + infobox map.

Unless there's a policy reasoning filling an infobox when an umbrella organizer (EBU here) makes a list, it otherwise just breaks consistency with the article's key-content and infobox map, looks lackluster in comparison, mislead readers who just check the infobox, or otherwise confused such aspects appear in the body, in the map, but summary-absent.

And as said (junior-discussion), filling the infobox per EBU-list is also months ahead of the event, refuting "for sure" while falls under "planning ahead". The EBU is collective-statement for the broadcasters' individual-ones, and the existence of this future article body-content is evidence Wikipedia accepts future material with "as of date" clarifs, as everyone here do.

By this, infobox on-hold is discriminate direction failing Wikipedia's mission for info.

Luxembourg 2024 good example - announced on 2023-show so by EBU approval, as will appear on EBU-list, colored purple on "infobox-map' + even pointed as "broadcasters-commentators in participating countries" chapter; and few countries withdrew after EBU's list, while overall rarely withdrew after individual participation-publications.

Even support post-event no-news articles so can speak for myself as Thomediter explained this circumstance gain per consistent box-body ratio + top-visible summary.

Project Rfc BTW is to remove/change body-tables; this is about agreed-fixed summary-parameters, filled now/later-ahead of ESC. That said, also open to await bit time/more views.

I also support Jochem's sandbox/IvanScrooge98 ideas per this info-at-info-box. אומנות (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't considered how the information portrayed elsewhere in the infobox could have a confusing effect, e.g. the map is coloured to contain Luxembourg but they're not listed in the infobox. I suppose because by default there is no heading for "returning countries" etc. unless there is something contained in that field it's not as big of an issue, but likewise I think what is now on the article, with the footnote confirming it as provisional, is probably the most suitable compromise available to us, so I'm happy for this to be kept like this for now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I also realized when I was about to comment about body-infobox consistency & proper update summary, and not for news-sake, that there's the map, exactly. I pointed Luxembourg in purple as inconsistency even inside the infobox, and under "broadcasters and commentators in participating countries", for which I further support (for future cases if before participation map can be created) that this parameters already filled to summarize the body, while I remain supportive of "as of" template as unlike clicking/scrolling to "provisional" footnote, "as of" is right next to the parameters (and above the map's participation dynamically updating colors) so accurate for last up-date and for easy-top readability. אומנות (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes

 Comment: @Sims2aholic8, Jjj1238, Grk1011, אומנות, IvanScrooge98, Dimsar01, Jochem van Hees, and Thomediter: I tried publishing an edit that would make the infobox just seem prettier while doing provisional countries, but it screwed with the map. Any help? ImStevan (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Wikipedia did not send me a notification for your mention. In any case, I don’t think I would be of any help trying to perform a complex edit to a template. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 17:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Göteborg bid

The eurovoix source itself mentions "In the upcoming days we will see if Gothenburg has a bid to submit" and that they are only preparing it and reviewing whether to actually submit it or not. Yoyo360 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Moldova confirmed?

There is no public source for the confirmation of the country for next year, the given source is just a random article that states the country will participate, despite not citing any sources to that claim. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The source says they received the information directly from the broadcaster. If the source is reliable, there is no need for alarm. If it is not reliable, the website shouldn't be used at all. IceWelder [✉] 20:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

...and "THAT" is good enough? I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous and literally lazy work. The reason I'm heavily questioning it now, is because it sounds very suspicious, since this broadcaster evaluates this kind of matter much latter in the year, the country is always one of the very last countries to announce their participation, and to rely on a random Spanish blog post, beyond ridiculous to accept such as a official confirmation.

Now, who am I to judge such? Well, I'm part of one of the ESC fan press sites, I'm on TRM's mailing list, as well as on the mailing list for their Head of Delegation and here's my press pass which should confirm all of this.

If I weren't able to provide proof, then I wouldn't have been able to say much, but when I have this position, then I clearly I won't hold back on my scepticism. A proper source is needed, and not this kind of "Just trust me bro" argument. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Real Heydavid17: It looks pretty good to me at least. They've even named the specific person who was the source of the information: "I am happy to confirm that Moldova will participate in Eurovision 2024 in Sweden", Daria Capatina, head of the Moldovan delegation at Eurovision, audiovisual producer and member of the communication and international relations service at TRM. [3] Grk1011 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Malmö

Isn't Malmö's sources for it bidding on hosting ESC2024 just speculations on some nice sites? Ropesman (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As the source specifies, it was reported by one of the main newspaper of the city. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

broadcasters

is the broadcasters even needed in the 'confirmed countries' section, when they're needed in the 'broadcasts' section? Vesparaw07 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Those two sections contain different information. The "Participating countries" shows those broadcasters which are participating, whereas the "Broadcasters" section shows those broadcasting the contest, which can be different. As an example, in Belgium either RTBF or VRT is the participating broadcaster in alternate years, however both broadcast the contest every year. In Germany, NDR is the participating broadcaster, but ARD has responsibility for broadcasting the event. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing whether we should inform about the brodcasters and songwriters in the table. I think the information is relevant enough to be on page, but I think we should stick to the tables including the most relevant information. For me, as it is right now, it becomes a bit too overloaded and confusing to look at the table.

Hope, this can be discussed further.

Cheers, thomediter Thomediter (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Croatia

@IvanScrooge98: It seems we're in a bit of an edit war. That section is for broadcasters that have officially stated some information about participating, but have not yet committed. It is clearly written right above as a hidden message in the section heading Only include countries that have information specific to 2024. The 'inclusion criteria' for this section has been the same for several years now. The ref provided for Croatia is a 2021 article about a process they used to select their entry back then. Yes it's true that it hints that they would use it for the next several years, but we can't have a backdoor confirmation like that. It's pure synthesis to draw a conclusion not clearly stated in the source. The ref includes no information specific to 2024. Grk1011 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit that the ESCBubble article is vague compared to its source, which clearly states the events will be held regularly in Opatija “until further notice”. Now, I was thinking it is a bit of a stretch to call it a case of WP:SYNTH just because 2024 is not explicitly mentioned, but reading the sources more thoroughly and seeing there is not even specific mention of the “three-year” contract length which is currently written in the article I’d have to reconsider my position. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad that the issue is settled! Grk1011 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Booked arenas

Seems Grk1011 and I are in disagreement as to whether events booked for May 2024 in the bidding arenas should be mentioned in the table. He claims these to be cases of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Now, if we didn’t have already two sets of possible dates for the contest (which is the case instead) I would understand the undue weight-reasoning; however, I still don’t see providing this info as a case of synthesis, as if stating the existence of certain shows in those dates meant telling the readers “it’s not gonna happen there” – for example, we already mention that Scandinavium is set for demolition, which doesn’t mean said demolition is going to happen within the next year hindering the possibility of hosting the event – it just seems like more complete info to me. I wanted to sound out other users’ opinions on this. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 19:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue lies with the sources in some cases. Of course the Eurovision news sites will pick up on it, but outside of that I don't see the two events being connected in this way. The Aftonbladet article about the additional Swift date doesn't mention Eurovision at all, and I suppose this is where the WP:SYNTH issue comes into play. Regarding your point about "more complete info", I actually believe including information such as that causes more questions than actually providing concrete information to the reader, because it's only providing a certain picture of what's going on at that arena in the run-up to the event. There's always going to be things going on at the venues at given times, and things can be moved if necessary, even though yes Taylor Swift would be a very big thing to have to move but that's not our job to try and communicate. As another example, going by the events listings at the Malmö Arena there are already events planned for the start and middle of April, when the arena would need to be clear to allow the stage to be built, and also in the Scandinavium in April and May, including the Thursday of one of the planned weeks of Eurovision. This doesn't make news however, because it's not Taylor Swift and these were most likely planned before Sweden won the contest. This is where WP:UNDUE comes in, because we would be focussing too much on this one event in this one arena but not on other similar things going on elsewhere. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, you are right and indeed I added the event planned for 9 May as soon as I noticed it on the Got Event website. It is currently hidden like Swift's tour. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 09:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

My hesitancy is that the only reason to include this information appears to be to cast doubt on some of the bids. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be operating on their own to categorize bids as unlikely. Even if you think presenting the information without commentary is "neutral", there is a connection that you're hoping the reader makes. Those cities submitted serious bids to host; it's on them to figure out the details, and they want to figure out those details! Maybe they will reschedule events, who knows. We shouldn't be checking bookings to see what might be in conflict and then adding that to the article. Independent sources would need to do that and actually even if such articles exist, none of these conflicts are actually insurmountable. I don't really understand the purpose of keeping the information hidden as there really isn't a time when it would be appropriate in the table in the future. Once the final city is chosen, it could be appropriate to write a few sentences about why that city was selected. The rest is just sort of irrelevant. Grk1011 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Uhm, this makes your point clearer. Maybe let’s wait until after the selection in case news report the venues were excluded for this conflict. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Commercial venue name

The name of Friends Arena on the page was recently replaced by Nationalarenan as it is the official name of the stadium and the Friends name is used for sponsorship reasons. But Friends is an anti-bullying non-profit organisation, so would a name change really be required in this case had it been by some miracle chosen to host the contest next year? Or more importantly for our current situation, would that require using this widely unrecognised name in the article? Agwjkl (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You have a point, considering other arenas in the list don’t even seem to have a non-sponsored name. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 05:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be whatever the sources say. Ideally, we would want to be able to see the actual bids, but I don't believe we have access to that. We definitely cannot decide on our own that "if the arena was ultimately selected it would need to have a different name based on contest rules". The sources would need to say the actual (de-branded) names. Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

BNT Eurovision Twitter account and their statements about participation

Briefly - every time an account supposedly belonging to Bulgarian Broadcaster named BNT Eurovision on Twitter responds to a question about whether it will take part, it is questioned on Wikipedia. After many changes of delegation members, the account has gone through strange changes, there have been situations with a fan taking over the account and publishing false information, and then the account contradicting itself in answers to questions. Now they have announced again that there is no plan to return. With this in mind, should we use their statements as references in the article, or hold off and wait for better proof that Bulgaria has no plans to return? Szyign (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say to just wait for the participants list roles around for Bulgaria, since unless BNT reports to any news outlets, a Twitter confirmation of non-participation would be subject to skepticism from many people, which is a fair call since BNT Twitter constantly contradicts itself with the messages they reveal. Violatie (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should wait for the final list or for a press release / announcement on more official platforms. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 08:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Poland and Ukraine

I'm curious are these sources reliable for Poland and Ukraine confirming their 2024 participation? Because on none of the other ESC related sites there is absolutely no information about it? Can someone explain this? Thanks. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The source for Ukraine is taken directly from Suspilne’s official Eurovision website – it was probably not noticed by ESC-themed websites since the confirmation is stated very briefly at the bottom of the news article about the selected host city. Regarding Poland, the confirmation seemingly came from a TVP show where the hosts started discussions as to what the country should do for their next selection; I tried to watch the excerpt but I guess it is only available in Poland and I don’t have a VPN, however this article from a Polish ESC site seems to confirm this. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The Polish source lists Wikipedia as one of its sources, which are listed at the bottom, so I would use caution. Additionally, media speculating or brainstorming about what Poland should do to select an entry is not the same as confirming on behalf of the broadcaster that they will participate. Grk1011 (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You’re right with your second point and that is also why I tried to look for news reporting the content of the broadcast. Regarding the risk of circular reference, the article I provided is dated from 15 July when we had not yet added Poland as a confirmed participant on Wikipedia, so it should be safe for that matter. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Here now I saw on Eurovoix that Ukraine confirmed, while for Poland they say it's not yet confirmed. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As a native Polish speaker, I have doubts regarding the source for the Polish confirmation. The host just briefly said she cannot wait for the reveal of the Polish participant, and that we (Poles) should support them no matter our personal opinion. Might seem like a confirmation to some, but she doesn't seem to have any internal information regarding the country's participation, nor was it ever confirmed directly Poland will take part. Also, DE is hardly ever reliable and often just jumps to conclusions. Agwjkl (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in, your impression as a Polish speaker is very useful! At this point I’d say let’s wait just in case TVP releases an official statement in the next few days or so, and otherwise remove the country from the list. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 16:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

PAISES DE LOS QUE NO SE SABE NADA

EN ESTE ARTICULO SIEMPRE VIENE TODO SUPER BIEN EXPLICITADO; PERO DE PRONTO UNA VEZ CERRADO EL PLAZO,NO SE APRECIA NINGUNA INFORMACION DE PAISES COMO CHEQUIA, ARMENIA...ETC. QUE PASA CON ELLOS? 84.78.197.218 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

First off, kindly use English in the English-language Wikipedia. Secondly, the broadcasters of these countries have yet to announce whether they will participate or not so we cannot provide any info in this article. Simple as that. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Romania

So here's my train of thought: If Romania is still deliberating if they will compete, 10 days after the deadline to confirm, but before the deadline to withdraw, it has to mean that they confirmed their participation with the EBU (at least for now). Should we color Romania purple or maybe even add a striped purple option for these situations where we know a confirmation took place, but it remaining as such is not an almost certain outcome? Perhaps the legend could say "Provisionally confirmed countries that may withdraw from the contest". This is a similar situation to North Macedonia, since we know they confirmed with the EBU, but are evaluating whether participation is viable, so they could be stuffed into that category aswell, adressing the points raised in the previous discussion — IмSтevan ^talk 19:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It would depend what the source link says. We can't deduce things that aren't already reported elsewhere. Grk1011 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Well it says that "the initial deadline to confirm registration for the contest passed on September 15, all countries have until October 11 to opt out without paying a financial penalty. The statement confirms that TVR are still considering all of their options for the 2024 contest." and "Although the broadcaster remains in talks with the EBU, the possibility of Romania withdrawing remains open". We aren't deducing things that aren't reported on. It has been reported that Romania confirmed participation with the EBU since they are now discussing ways to fund their entry or alternatively if they should withdraw. The thing is we didn't get a statement like with most other countries, all we know is that since they are discussing ESC 2024, and the deadline to confirm passed on 15 September, they confirmed their participation with the EBU (for now), so it would seem fitting to get a new label for both them and North Macedonia, which is in a very similar situation — IмSтevan ^talk 22:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

My two cents worth is that it could be a bit too confusing to some people viewing the article seeing a weird new label when both Romania and North Macedonia could just be mentioned in the Other Countries tab where we can reiterate that they have submitted a participation application to the EBU. Of course I'm not as experienced as anyone else in the discussion, so my thoughts probably aren't that relevant but it is just my two cents. Violatie (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact is we are in front of two very different official stances from the broadcasters: TVR openly admitted they are unsure about their participation, MRT didn’t – excluding third-party reports – and all we officially know is that they are firmly keen on competing. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as their confirmations go, they are in the same category: confirmed with the EBU and seeking funding — IмSтevan ^talk 11:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree, both have implied that they wish to participate and has formally submitted an application. If they had not, then it would've been over and decided by now.

However, there is one thing that does set the two countries apart. MRT provided the source themselves, TVR did not. All the things about Romania withdrawing are coming from 3rd party sites, and to be fair, some trashy tabloid ones even. TVR has technically speaking, not said anything directly themselves. I personally have not been unable to find any public quotes online from anyone that could be involved in Romania's participation or not. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we could have them both below as Violatie proposed, but I’m still not convinced given the different contexts; MRT has a pretty clear budget plan outlined and is waiting for it to be approved, TVR has not released any info and as far as we know they may be either at a tentative stage or also waiting for the final approval. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

So...

What happened to the Czech participation? - Nickel — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxtrotInAlphaFanagram (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@FoxtrotInAlphaFanagram: a discussion has been opened just before this thread. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Czechia possible confirmation

As far as I am concerned, the Czech source being posted only amounts to a confirmation of broadcast, not a confirmation of participation, so I have removed it. Curious to hear what you all think though. Toffeenix (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought originally, but I left it considering this came right after the final withdrawing deadline. This probably amounts to WP:OR though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just seen this tweet by Halloun. I’ll add the info to the page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Armenia

They haven't been mentioned at all on this page as it stands now. Is there absolutely zero info? (I couldn't find much, but there could perhaps be some related article or report out there, in Armenian?) TechnoWho (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

They usually don't confirm until the full participant list is announced CirKill (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

North Macedonian confirmation

Tagging in User:IvanScrooge98 for this, but I'll keep it here in case anyone else wants to discuss. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but North Macedonia in the confirmed countries list seems a little of a stretch. The budget is only a proposed one, not accepted (I think it's not likely to be accepted until after the EBU list, but I'll have to find a source for this). As such I would not support including North Macedonia as a competing country (note also no confirmation from sources like ESCToday, who would normally be all over this). Curious to hear your thoughts though, wouldn't want to get into a dispute over it. Toffeenix (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Uhm, I totally see your point. I actually added this because the line I specified was not directly quoted by ESC-themed websites and I thought they had missed the original document. Also, why would MRT publish an unconfirmed plan (in a document of more than 100 pages) unless they are at the very least confident it will be approved? But this is kind of a personal consideration, I have to admit. I am pretty neutral as to whether we should include this or not.

(On a side note, it is interesting that the document was published on the very deadline for confirming participation in 2024.) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Think it's very possible that nearly everyone has missed the original document, which if memory serves seems to happen more often than not. I'd probably give it 90% that they are back, just don't wanna push crystal ball too hard. But - you're a lot more experienced than I am, and I can understand going either way on it Toffeenix (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate a lot that you deem me experienced, but we are all here to contribute and share our thoughts :) Your objection was absolutely legitimate, after all the plan does have to be approved before anything is 100% (or 99.99%) certain. But similar reasonings ideally apply to all the countries (or rather, broadcasters) that have announced their participation so far, at least until the withdrawal deadline of 11 October. MRT’s plan is clear to me: they intend to participate. But I’m totally open to other users’ opinions on the matter considering how cautious the reports have been. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. With the understanding that the list is only provisional I can understand them being included - it's a confirmation of intention of participation, which is really all that we can hope for right now anyway.Toffeenix (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have an objection! First, I will say, that I agree on the statement, that it seems that North Macedonia do indeed intend to participate. However, I managed to spot a section, that lots of news sites managed to completely oversee.

On the document, at the very bottom of page 98, which could possibly contradict their participation.

Unfortunately, I am no speaker of the Macedonian language, so whether Google translate properly translated it, then it can be seen as North Macedonia only has the broadcasting rights at the moment. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Being no native speaker either, I also used Google Translate. However, the section you indicated doesn’t seem to refer to MRT’s broadcasting rights. Could you quote the passage? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Трошоци за реализација на проектот Избор на песна – македонски претставник на

Јуниорски евросонг 2024 година, како и трошоци планирани за Евросонг 2024 година

кои би произлегле доколку МРТ го пренесува фестивалот дури и ако РСМ не

учествува со свој претставник.

Translated:

Costs for the realization of the project Selection of a song - Macedonian representative of

Junior Eurosong 2024 and costs planned for Eurosong 2024

which would result if MRT broadcasts the festival even if RSM does not

participates with its own representative.

I looked up what RSM was, which in Cyrillic is the РСМ part. In Cyrillic, it's Република Северна Македонија, which translates into Republic of North Macedonia. Hence at the bottom, it is quoted "...even if Republic of North Macedonia does not participates with its own representative". Regarding their broadcasting rights, that is listed at the bottom of page 19, where it states the show as "purchased" Real Heydavid17 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh now I see, thanks. It looks like a statement specifying what happens in case something prevents them from taking part (“even if” suggests a hypothesis), so I still think it’s safe to say their intention is to participate. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course, clearly they "intend" to participate, but the question is IF they will participate, correct? If we should go by what we believe might be correctly translated, then the last line suggests that withdrawal before the October deadline is still possible. Surely, a confirmed participation means that it is 100% safe to happen. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue raised in this talk lies with the fact that reports have taken the confirmation as unsure (due to the fact that it is a plan waiting for approval). But technically, all confirmations arrived so far are “unsure”, considering that countries can still withdraw regardless. That line looks more like a “just-in-case” provision to me (it is an official document, so it makes sense). And even going by the translation, we should still take all the document in consideration, so it would be “we are participating; in the event we fail to do so” etc., which as you said is much more a yes than a no. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps, shouldn't only official documents and articles be used as valid sources? We know that this document from MRT is valid and official, yet we're still wondering whether they will take part or not.

For example, I wouldn't exactly claim that "all confirmations" are unsure, since we have some broadcasters who have openly asked for applications. Luxembourg, Estonia, Denmark, Sweden to name a few, who have already shown where they are in their process regarding picking their next entrant. Meanwhile, there is Greece, Georgia, Slovenia and even by some Poland, which are claimed by fansites, despite there being a lack of an actual article that confirms such, from the broadcaster itself.

Just for good measurement, I'm enjoying seeing these arguments, in order to gain some sort of understanding from different perspectives. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course many national selections have started and are highly unlikely to be halted – I was simply stating that they still all have the right to withdraw (however improbable it may be). On the other hand, there are broadcasters which release no information on any of their platforms before the final EBU announcement, but happen to reply to fansite editors contacting them. In one word, it’s tricky and we cannot treat all countries alike, rather making our considerations on a case-by-case basis. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

My two cents. I think we can consider North Macedonia confirmed. The section is for provisional confirmation, the document signifies that they intend to participate, which is what every broadcaster is doing. The only difference here is that we're learning of their intention through a document instead of a representative saying it, which is a difference that I don't think should change how we interpret it. On the chance they don't compete, we can simply remove them, it's not that high stakes. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the WP:V requirements of Wikipedia, we'd likely need a source to say this. If any sort of interpretation is required, then it's likely not a valid source for this information. Grk1011 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a peculiar case since all the websites have taken on the original tweet by ESC Discord deeming the confirmation uncertain (for the reasons above). But the document presents a clear statement of intentions, which needs little interpretation IMO and is basically all we need for a provisional list, as Jjj1238 said. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Huh? We need a source to say what? We have a source. The point of the matter is that every country in the list is simply there for a provisional confirmation, meaning every single one of them could back out tomorrow and we are not claiming anything is 100% certain, just that there are sources that prove they intend to compete. The source we have for North Macedonia proves it intends to compete, the only issue here is that some are trying to interpret the source differently than how other sources are interpreted. I say no special interpretation is needed, and it is as good as an executive at the broadcaster saying that they intend to compete like the many other sources are for other countries. If North Macedonia ends up backing out, then they end up backing out, but that can happen to any country on the list as all of these confirmations are simply provisional. Years back we intentionally changed the title of this list to be a "provisional" list of confirmed countries for this specific reason. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: I wrote that days ago regarding a different ref from this version of the page. There is now an independent source that isn't a line item in a budget proposal. Grk1011 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I can definetely see both sides here. But I feel somewhat that this article raises the doubt, and honestly I'd think it would be more safe to not include until an announcement. Thomediter (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the unconfirmed reports we have included so far came before any publication or announcement from the broadcaster. It’s the other way around here, so I’m still not sure whether we should mention those given MRT is the one that has a say and has officially published that document. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, the Focus article stating that they haven't yet decided is also quoting sources from within MRT. The headline of the document "confirming" their participation is also titled "Proposed Annual Program". I would suggest we remove North Macedonia from the confirmed countries list (and re-added under "Other Countries") until either the budget is officially approved or they release a more definitive statement on participation. Mr. Thistle (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There is another aspect, now that I think of it. The deadline to submit the provisional participation is over, so if they “haven’t decided yet” it actually means they have applied and are currently evaluating whether to withdraw or not. I still have mixed feelings, because any of the other countries could still change its mind as well (technically). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This article personally doesn't change anything for me. I think that a lot of these sources simply have different criteria for inclusion than us. Our list is for provisional confirmations, while they are claiming things aren't 100% confirmed, which the provisional list does not claim to be doing. As IvanScrooge98 also mentions, the application deadline has passed, so that means they have applied and are just considering whether they should withdraw their application or not. I think it is fine to keep them, and if news comes out that they will not compete then we can remove them. The budget implied provisional participation and then other sources confirmed it, if one source says their return is not 100% confirmed then that doesn't really change anything for me because our provisional list does not claim anything is 100% confirmed. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: weirdly enough, MRT is apparently still in talks despite being well over the deadline. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Armenia update

Hello! Is it some update about the participating of Armenia? Because I haven't heard some updates yet. Are they gonna participate or not? 2A01:799:BDA:1A00:AC6C:DB7D:5ECE:E0EA (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas war

I think before we include any information pertaining to the Israel-Hamas war in the main 2024 page we must discuss it thoroughly. As it's still November, a lot can still change between now and May + the EBU hasn't officially spoken out about this. Also, security has been beefed up in Sweden more broadly since the Quran burnings (see https://www.nytimes.com/article/sweden-denmark-quran-burnings.html) Pdhadam (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The source also reports a comment by Österdahl. Of course a lot can change but at the moment the producers stated that they are working in this direction specifically in light of the current events in the Middle East. I understand it may be early to include this now though, so it’s probably fine to keep the info hidden until the situation becomes clearer overtime. Still I decided to include it because I was struck that among much criticism that I have seen regarding Israel’s participation, they decided to release these statements while seemingly ignoring the other side of the matter. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I find it to be WP:UNDUE weight. The source article doesn't quantify or identify who these "many" are and the "response" from a contest official was generic and in passing (not a press event or anything). Grk1011 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Suspilne/UA:PBC

Ukraine's broadcaster has rebranded to Suspilne, which is the name for the broadcaster now used by Eurovision. I've seen a bit of back and forth in the edit history about the rebrand, so I thought I'd make a thread on it. I think we should be using the new name here because otherwise it creates confusion with the announcements and press releases. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the rationale behind keeping “UA:PBC” was that it still appeared as such on the EBU-related websites but now they seem to be in the process of changing that so I agree with using “Suspilne”. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Serbia

The participation map is not intirely correct, Kosovo is not a fully independent country, and thus still part of Serbia. Can somebody change it please, (also on the Wikipedia pages of Eurovision 2008 up until now, the one from Eurovision 2007 is correct tho). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44E:FA4A:0:ECF4:9FA4:9BA4:5304 (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo declared its independence in 2008, has since then been recognized as a sovereign state by a large number of states worldwide, and has its own government. You can’t ignore that and say it’s “still part of Serbia”. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Serbia never signed their Declaration of Independence. That’s also the reason why their status has been questioned internationally, wether it’s a sovereign state or a province of Serbia. Montenegro for example gained full independence a little before them, which means Serbia also recognizes their independence. And NOBODY questions wether it’s a country or not. This stands separate from anyone’s opinion, wether anyone personally believes Kosovo is a country or not. Because these are facts. 2A02:A44E:FA4A:0:D552:FF73:654A:2361 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo has participated in Eurovision events before and it's extremely rare for a singer from Kosovo to attempt to represent Serbia, hence colouring them as part of Serbia would be inaccurate to the political situation there, would seem like Kosovo's music scene is the same as Serbia's, and would make it seem like Wikipedia is pro-Serbia when the site should remain neutral in affairs relating to the politics of Serbia/Kosovo on a song contest page. Violatie (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You might wanna re-phrase yourself, the "region" has only participated once in an EBU event, and therefor not in "events". Other than that, the region is filled with Albanians who instead participates in Festivali i Këngës. When the region only has a Serb population of 4%, then no wonder, that they have barely tried to represent Serbia, since there are barely any, and of course, most Serbs are located in Mitrovica. Most noticeable is of course Nevena Bozovic, who is from the region and has represented Serbia twice.

Plus, there's no way this topic can be considered "neutral", by putting it as "a different country" pretty much marks it as anti-Serbia instead.

Other than that, music can have various styles within a country, so despite different styles, that's not really a valid argument to "separate" land.

I might have my own personal view as well, but that doesn't make it correct. However, I can freely share that I personally believe that acknowledging them, and even encouraging the "region" to aim for participation, is the most absurd and foolish mistake, that can be done. Especially considering there are indeed various countries who would be against it, due to internal reasons as well. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be accurate if you look at the political situation over there. Because Kosovo is a part of Serbia and is also a disputed territory, so not (yet) a sovereign state. Transnistria and Abchazia are also not shown as fully independent countries, but part of their respective countries. The thing is Kosovo functions in practice as a fully independent country, but officially still belongs to Serbia. Also showing them as independent is also a stance. I fully agree with Real Heydavid17 on this. Would other territories which have declared independence in the past (Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, South Ossetia) also be shown separately on this map and start to participate at Eurovision? (Why aren't they shown independently in the first place, just like Kosovo does?) That's too ridiculous, we are already with so many fully independent fully recognized states in the contest. We would also don't really have space for them to also join be honest. This would not make any sense. 2A02:A44E:FA4A:0:ECF4:9FA4:9BA4:5304 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You guys are going off track. Kosovo is much more widely recognized than Transnistria or South Ossetia, and comparing it to them is frankly ridiculous. Also, as pointed out, it has already taken part independently in an EBU event and is actively pushing for membership, as mentioned in this very article – like it or not, Kosovo exists. Anything else relates to your opinion on whether it is a legitimate country or not, which has no place here. Otherwise I might as well start to ask Israel be removed from these maps. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. That´s the reason why Kosovo gained membership in some international organisations that have loose membership citeria´s. But in the end they are both de facto states. Wales also has participated independently in an EBU event, should it also be shown separate from the UK? Yes, Kosovo indeed exists, but not as a fully sovereign state. As mentioned earlier this matter stands completely free from my personal or anybody else's opinion, because this is a fact. Israel actually managed to gain full independence and thus full recognition from the United Kingdom, later followed by the vast majority of countries in the world. unlike Kosovo which never achieved this from Serbia. Israel now has an almost universal recognition of their independence from almost all UN member states + Vatican City. Kosovo only has quitte a lot of international recognitions, but they lack recognition from their seceding state. That is the problem. 2A02:A44E:FA4A:0:ECF4:9FA4:9BA4:5304 (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo does exist as a sovereign state, despite Serbia's limited recognition of its status. Wales never declared its independence and is not recognized as a separate sovereign entity. Kosovo is in a unique situation and this cannot be ignored altogether. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The other side of this is that as things stand Kosovo is unable to participate in ESC. I'd recommend being on the Serbian side of the fence until that situation changes. Krytenia (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Non-eligible doesn’t mean non-existent. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A country can only become fully independent once the state where it secedes from also agrees by signing their declaration of independence. That's also the reason why Kosovo is not a part of the United Nations, while the last balkan countries became members like 15 years ago. This is also the same reason why they aren't part of the EBU. 2A02:A44E:FA4A:0:70B8:89BD:B14C:13B1 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

While Kosovo may not be recognised by some, the EBU and EU both recognise that Kosovo exists in some form. However, they don’t recognise states such as South Ossetia, pretty much nobody does, so that would be an unfair argument.

. As Eurovision is non-political, and considering that the EBU has recognised the Kosovan version of Festivali i Këngës, and the RTK broadcast the contest, you can definitely say that they are associated with Eurovision at least.

I apologise if you don’t accept the existence of Kosovo, but most EU and EBU members recognise their independence. I’m not an expert on any of this, most definitely, but I believe I know enough.

As with most maps, a helpful way to resolve this problem would be to mark the Kosovan borders with dotted lines instead, so people know it’s not fully recognised. x Eurov7sion (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Cyprus is not recognised by one country also that doesnt mean we should include cyprus in the turkish map man, get a life , kosovo is a sovereign state, if not it would be albanian. Nickodath (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a simple issue. Kosovo has self-declared as an independent state, and has been recognised by most of the EBU. Especially with it vying to enter the ESC, I think displaying it separately is completely fine. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 15:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: The map already displays a dotted line as the border, it's just that purple clashes with grey so much that it creates a solid border, and the dotted line is basically impossible to see. There is an arguement to be made that it should be colored light purple, but then there would be many regions in Europe that would have to be colored in the same way as well. The dotted line currently doesn't achieve the intended effect, so it should be either changed to a proper border, or Kosovo should be colored light purple. — IмSтevan ^talk 09:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly - that would be a good compromise. Eurov7sion (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Logo

I think it would be more appropriate to update the logo to the official one. 185.251.84.42 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Which one would that be, or which one are you thinking about? Currently, they have released the slogan and the theme art, so the official logo still, would be the standard ESC logo with host city and year below and the flag of the host country in the heart. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Romania on the map

Any way we could get another colour for Romania on the map? Looks at the moment like they've never participated, which is obviously not correct. Toffeenix (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That would mean implementing a special parameter in the Template:Infobox song contest just for the occasion. I don’t think we really need that considering that the Romanian confirmation of (non-)particpation should come shortly. The note after the number of countries seems enough to me. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Toffeenix and IvanScrooge98: Honestly I would support adding an aditional parameter stating "Countries that have participated in the past, but whose participation status is unknown". Especially at the very start of a season, surely the map should note differences between say Moldova which usually confirms quite late, and Algeria which is just not competing nor considering it, it just doesn't make sense to me that they should both be grey (like Romania and let's say Egypt right now). I think this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision — IмSтevan ^talk 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, that would be useful in the months preceding the official EBU announcement. We could open a discussion about it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think adding another color is overthinking it. Just make Romania yellow and adjust the key to be Countries that participated in the past but have either not confirmed for 2024 or will not participate in 2024. Something like that. Grk1011 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Grk1011: I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision#A_new_color_on_the_map — IмSтevan ^talk 14:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

UK should be green on the map

UK artist is revealed. UK should be green on the map. Digitz123 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This does not depend on Wikipedia editors. You should always ask this kind of things to those who edit the file on Commons. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel

Surely the various statements by broadcasters regarding Israel's participation, as well as statements from Olly and the Israeli embassy in the UK should be included in the participating countries section or controversies — IмSтevan ^talk 14:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd worry a bit about WP:RECENTISM. If you look back at previous contests, some of the very impactful controversies and issues only have a summary tone. If this were included on the main page at this point, it should be somewhat succinct, i.e. "Numerous participating nations including X, Y, and Z, called for A, B, and C to occur". Grk1011 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this is important enough to be included. If we have a page about a contest, controversies surrounding it should be included. Take the 2022 contest controversies section for example, this is much more important and impactful than Andrea tossing a flag — IмSтevan ^talk 16:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose one distinction to be drawn with that comparison is that the North Macedonia incident in 2022 happened at the contest itself, rather than the current controversy which is in prelude to the contest and only specifically impacts one participating country. I do think there is a case to be made for including some information here, however as Grk1011 rightly points out, WP:RECENTISM is one thing we should consider when adding anything to this article. This is still an ongoing situation, and I believe that the bulk of information should be hosted within the Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 article. There is probably a wider question about what "incidents" should be included in these articles anyway, given I think in some cases there is possibly too much information, but that's a separate discussion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We have Israel's UK embassy criticizing Olly, so should that be in the UK's page? We have an indication that Finland might withdraw, should that be on Finland's page? I would understand your point if it was all only affecting a single country, not a variety of them. Eurovision Song Contest 2022#Exclusion of Russia would be my go-to example — IмSтevan ^talk 23:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Might is sort of the problem. We can wait until an action takes place. There's no rush. Wikipedia isn't designed to be the place to go for news. It's role is to record what has already taken place. Grk1011 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)