Talk:Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Voting blocs
editI don't think there is a "West Europe Block", as mentioned in the article.--90.224.50.167 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There most certainlyhttp://m.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/eurovision-song-contest/null-punkte-deutschland-und-oesterreich-beim-esc-13601177.htmlis not in the case of the UK. We have never had regular voting partners for the last decade or so. Only since Malta's admission to the Eurovision do we have some semblenece of a partner. Harry Hayfield 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ireland, maybe --213.37.71.217 (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ireland definitely. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no bloc voting between Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Austria and Germany gave each other more often nil points than any point. http://m.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/eurovision-song-contest/null-punkte-deutschland-und-oesterreich-beim-esc-13601177.html 212.95.7.197 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Ambiguous
editThe sentence "Ten jury members per country had ten points", or some variation of it, is used repeatedly in this table. This could mean either ten jury members had ten points each or ten jury members had one point each (ten points between them). As far as I am aware, it means one point each in all cases, but I do not have actual knowledge, so I would prefer if somebody who knows would fix the ambiguity. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyediting
editHey all, here to help copyedit. I will be working my way through the article over the next few days and input is welcome, particularly from people with knowledge. Update: can someone with knowledge please clarify: in years during which juries distributed 10 points, could they give all 10 points to one song? Or were they required to distribute them among a certain number of songs? 1984&co (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- In the years that 10 points were distributed, all the juries had 10 ponts in which they could share out between songs or award the entire 10 points to one song. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Highest scores
editWhat to do with the "Highest scores" section now that the voting system of 2016 has doubled the total number of scores? There are of course differences in the past, such as the number of voting countries varying and scoring changes prior to 1975. I feel that it is irrelevant to show results from pre-2016 and 2016-onwards in the same table. Does anyone want to add a comparable quantity, like percentage of total votes to the table? Just split into two tables? Just add a text note in the section? ErikM (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I added percentages for the songs listed. Someone more ambitious could compute for all years and make another table with the top-five based on percentage. ErikM (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel that is not noteworthy to mention that Austraila was first to get 500 points without winning. In 2016 the total number of scores awarded per voting country was doubled from 58 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+10+12) to 116, so it is natural that high-score limits would be broken this year. To say that Australia was first over the 500-limit is just based on the order in which the scoreboard was presented on TV, i.e. with the highest total televote points last although the full results were known by the EBU before the presentation started. The limit of 500 is also arbitrary — a doubling of the table's 300-limit to 600 would be more meaningful. Didn't remove the text yet, though. ErikM (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The number of points is irrelevant because of different voting systems. I made a table (#Table) that sorts all the winners by the percentage of all votes and by the percentage of maximum possible score (which are different things). I inserted only top 5 in the article, but I placed the whole table here for reference. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not either ./ or but could be both/ and. Absolute number of votes is also noteworthy, as well as percentages. I would include both sets of information. Zymurgy (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The maximum possible points for 1964-1966 is technically wrong, as a song could receive 9 points from one country if all their jurors voted for the same song (but this never happened). This is definitely a case where % of total points is more important showing that both columns are important. Emetzold (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Table
edit
Tie-breakers
edit"…unless the host country performed earlier (in which case the song performed later would be the winner)." I can't find some of this sentence in current 2017 rules and 2015 rules (archived). For example we have Austria and Germany that recieved both 0 points. By tie-breaking rules winner is a country that… a) recieved points from most countries or… b–k) recieved most of 12 points… 10 points… 8 points… […] 1 points… l) paticipated first by running order… and m) not a host country. By (a) both countries have a 0 points. From (b) to (k) this part of rule is not works (because no countries gived their points to Austria and Germany). By (l) first country by running order is Austria (14th) and then second is Germany (17th). By (m) the host country of ESC’15 is Austria. It means that winner of tie-breake is Germany, i.e. Germany ranking 26th, and Austria ranking 27th. But in Official webcite last place is Germany. Germany have a last place without (m) part of tie-breaking rules. @Wesley Wolf and AxG: Where this part in tie-breaking rules? Sorry for my English. ← Alex Great talkrus? 08:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Austria were placed higher than Germany by the EBU and is sourced on the contest article. Who are we to judge and argue against the organisers? Sometimes in life you will come across confusing situations, but why hurt the brain trying to figure them out. When in doubt, leave things be. That's my motto anyway! Wes Wolf Talk 08:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- In situation of Austria and Germany - Ok. But I'm interestning where this sentence (in italics) is appear? In which document? I can't find it. Is it realy part of tie-break rule? Or maybe is a mistake in Wikipedia article? ← Alex Great talkrus? 10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The rules in 2015 did not mention anything about host country. They basically stated that the following would happen in the event of a tie (after combined votes):
- Received most points from televote.
- Received points from most national audiences.
- Received most 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
- Performed earliest in the running order.
- Those are the same for 2015, 2016, and 2017. I've looked through the edit history and discovered that J4lambert made the change you are querying about on 9 May 2014. Not sure where they got the information from. But we do know that since 2015 if the host country performed earlier, they would still win. Maybe pre-2014 a rule that would prevent the host country from winning in the event of a tie. But I'm not sure if the EBU keep archived copies of each contest rules on their website. And I won't be contacting them personally, as that impeaches original research. Wes Wolf Talk 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I realy think that variant of J4lambert is not displayed in Eurovision Rules. For example you can see 2013, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999 Rules. ← Alex Great talkrus? 05:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Alex Great: although it is possible to remove that context. I would at least wait for a reasonable period of time, to allow J4lambert chance to explain where they got the information from. If they do not come back to us on here by the time the 2017 contest has begun, then I'd be happy to see the context removed. Wes Wolf Talk 12:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding and clarification. ← Alex Great talkrus? 12:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am removing the part of the tiebreaker you specified, since the new rules in 2016 with the televote and national audiences do not specify the host country. J4lambert (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding and clarification. ← Alex Great talkrus? 12:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Alex Great: although it is possible to remove that context. I would at least wait for a reasonable period of time, to allow J4lambert chance to explain where they got the information from. If they do not come back to us on here by the time the 2017 contest has begun, then I'd be happy to see the context removed. Wes Wolf Talk 12:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I realy think that variant of J4lambert is not displayed in Eurovision Rules. For example you can see 2013, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999 Rules. ← Alex Great talkrus? 05:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- The rules in 2015 did not mention anything about host country. They basically stated that the following would happen in the event of a tie (after combined votes):
@J4lambert: I very much appreciate your time in responding to this query. Looking back on archived rules, the position on host country does not seem to have ever been in place. But anyway, 
Thank you in offering to self-revert the content you added. Regards, Wes Wolf Talk 17:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, what about Junior Eurovision Song Contest? Tie-breaking rules for JESC is not applicable? I can't find info for JESC'16 Rules. What are you think about that? ← Alex Great talkrus? 03:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- For example, we have tie-breaking situation with Russia and Australia in scoreboard JESC'16. If we can use an ESC'16 tie-braking rules, then we know that televotes is not exist. Ok, next stage is number of voted countries (for Russia – 15 countries + 3 experts; for Australia – 13 countries + 3 experts). With ESC'16 rules tie-breaking winner is Russia. Is it right? Same thing with Israel and Cyprus at same year: for Israel – 3 countries + 1 expert; for Cyprus – 3 countries w/o any expert points. Ok, tie-breaking winner is Israel? What about JESC'15 with three tie-breaking countries (12–13th places): Ireland, San Marino and Montenegro? In this year also no exist televotes and no introduced experts. Most voted countries stage: for Ireland – 8 countries, for San Marino – 4 countries, for Montenegro – 5 countries. And what we see? By tie-breaking rules 12th place is Ireland, 13th place is Montenegro, 14th place is San Marino. In scoreboard official scoreboard is a true. Is it mean that JESC use same tie-breaking system with ESC? Why it is not published in official rules of the contest? I don't know. ← Alex Great talkrus? 03:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Alex Great: you really are starting to find faults, and looking too deep into situations, which is a bit annoying to be honest. The EBU already ranked Russia as 4th and Australia as 5th - so that tie-break uses the same method as the ESC. Just because the EBU are not as explicit in the definition of the JESC published rules and ESC published rules, in regards to the tie-break - is nothing we should be worrying about, or is it something we should be thinking too hard about either. Personally I do not see any problems or issues. Don't worry about it, and just move on. Wes Wolf Talk 05:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14111
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430201605/http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2015/2014-09-02_2015_ESC_rules_EN_PUBLIC_RULES.pdf to http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2015/2014-09-02_2015_ESC_rules_EN_PUBLIC_RULES.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430201605/http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2015/2014-09-02_2015_ESC_rules_EN_PUBLIC_RULES.pdf to http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2015/2014-09-02_2015_ESC_rules_EN_PUBLIC_RULES.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160515141453/https://www.eurovision.tv/upload/voting/ESC-2016-grand_final-full_results.xls to http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/voting/ESC-2016-grand_final-full_results.xls
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://esctoday.com/news/read/5208
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Wrong tie breaker rules in the article.
editHey guys. im not an editor so please be kind. I found out that the article is missing some data about tie breakers.
Since 2016 in case of combined points tie, the tie winner will be country that received more points from the Televote (National Audience). Only if they receive the same amount of points from televote, it will go as it's written in the article. You can see it here: [1] Section 3.2 I noticed this when i asked myself why in ESC2019 Slovenia finished before France. By wiki's rules France should be higher because they received points from more countries than Slovenia (24-20). but apparently it's the televote that got Slovenia to be higher.
also, i don't see any mention about running order in a tie situation.
Beigale (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Done LexPro4 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Maximum number of participating countries
editIn the box for the current voting system, it says that 43 is the maximum number of participating countries. Where did you get that from? I believe there is no maximum number. The fact that 43 has been the highest number of participating countries in the past, does not mean that it's a maximum. The number of eligible countries exceeds 43 and I believe no one would be banned from the Contest if more than 43 countries apply for participation. Hhl95 08:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC+1)
Grouping identical country names in tables
editI don't think these things should be grouped in the tables, because they are separate participations so they should be listed separately, and these tables aren't sorted by country name or something anyway. It also makes the table look untidy. I actually thought that removing them would be uncontroversial but apparently people keep adding it back and I don't understand why. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that they shouldn't be grouped. For whatever reason, I've found many unregistered users to be obsessed with grouping things in tables in many articles, not just this one. It doesn't make it right. Grk1011 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Top Ten Jury Highest Scores
editWhy is it the Top 11 and not the Top 10? Europe2016 ~ talk ~ Eurovision 07:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're right; removed the one at the bottom. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposed revision of opening paragraph
editI am proposing that the opening paragraph be rewritten along the following lines:
"The winner of the Eurovision Song Contest is selected by a positional voting system. The basic principles involved are that (i) for each set of votes cast, songs are awarded 12, 10, or from 8 points down to 1 point in descending order of popularity; (ii) a set of votes is determined either by a national televote or "jury" of industry professionals; and (iii) no nation may may vote for itself. For the 2023 contest, in each semi-final participating countries will cast one set of votes decided on the basis of a televote alone, then in the final each country will cast two sets of votes, as determined by a jury and independent televote."
The rationale for this is that in articles on individual contests (e.g. 1996) the basic voting system is explained at length, often with several descriptions of the way points are distributed within the same article. This not only inflates the size of articles, but distracts from any discussion of what was specific to the contest in a particular year. The obvious solution would be to be able to say (e.g.) "points were awarded according to the standard voting procedure". However, as it stands at present, I do not feel the opening paragraph explains enough to be able to do this, and it's difficult to pick out the most salient points from the remainder of the article due to its sheer length.
Any comments or suggestions, please!!
(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC))
- @Edwin of Northumbria: If you want to rewrite the lead paragraph for this article, then I don't see anything stopping you. One point I would raise is that your use of numbered bullet points in prose is quite jarring for me, it doesn't read particularly well and I would suggest a rewrite of this in particular to make it all prose. As for your overall rationale, I'm not sure how this has any bearing on what is included in this or other articles or the level of detail within the yearly articles. In my mind it makes sense to have a full explanation of the voting system used in each year's contest on those articles in particular, with a link to this article if the reader wants to have a read into the changes over time. I believe this has also been backed up through the WP:GA reviews that have been conducted, but always happy to discuss if there are any further changes that may be beneficial. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Percentage of jury vs tele points
editImportant info missing. How much of the total points were decided by jury vs televoting? This data would be easily accessible, but is missing in the article. Depeli (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)