Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests

Home
Talk
Article
Alerts
Assessment
Quality
Articles
Popular
Pages
Formatting
& Guidance
MembersUserboxesArchive
(WP Eurovision)

Rest of the World article

[edit]

@ImStevan: I noticed you created the new article Rest of the World in the Eurovision Song Contest. While I am bit skeptical if we need a stand-alone article on this, the main reason why I'm raising this question is the detailed voting section; how have you determined the rankings of the countries below 10th place in these votes? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll demonstrate using an example. The ROTW votes for each individual country below 10th are in between other countries. Say, Montenegro placed Latvia 13th, and Germany placed Latvia 14th, and ROTW is smushed between them. In 2025, ROTW is always placed on top of the ranking (alphabetically for whatever reason it'd be 1. ROTW, 2. Albania, 3. Austria, 4. Australia etc). This means that ROTW placed Latvia 14th. Repeat the process for every country. This was all done using only data available on Eurovision.tv. — IмSтevan talk 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I created a new article so that the Rest of the world in sports and games article wouldn't be just filled with data about its Eurovision voting — IмSтevan talk 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a WP:SYNTH violation to me; you're using multiple sources of data that draw a conclusion that is not present in any of the sources individually. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound like it to me — IмSтevan talk 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This totally is synthesis. You're using multiple parts of a primary source to conclude something not stated in the primary source at all. You need to cite a secondary source for this. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is synthesis. What you're presenting should itself be in the source, not constructed from bits and pieces. Grk1011 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is synthesis. That way of getting the ranking is something you have come up with yourself just by looking at the data (which, in addition to calling into question the reliability of the outcome, makes some positions uncertain, which is unacceptable); and you pulled the ranking for the semi-finals out of thin air since the full rankings are not listed anywhere. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same methodology was used for semi-finals. The full rankings of semis are listed on Eurovision.tv — IмSтevan talk 08:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. In the semis without jury (2023-2025), the countries that have not been awarded points are simply listed without any indication of their position. Considering that the position in which they are listed corresponds to the ranking is simply speculative. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculative. They are listed according to the position. — IмSтevan talk 08:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that they are listed according to position. You decided that based on your own WP:OR. Grk1011 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read comment below — IмSтevan talk 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, we already use this fact in all by country articles for their detailed votes in the semis — IмSтevan talk 16:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 and Ferclopedio: And no, this is not WP:OR. Take Albania for example. In "points given by televoters" Armenia is listed as 18th. If we check detailed results, hmm, says 18th. In "points given by jury", Armenia is listed as 17th. What a coincidence, in the detailed results it's also listed as 17th. And what a coincidence, you can do this with every country in the final and all places correspond. Will somebody please tell me how this translates to "the rankings in the semis are unknown and could be in any order"? Is anybody arguing that they decided to do everything in order in the grand final but then decided to arbitrarily arrange countries' rankings in the semis? — IмSтevan talk 20:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that is also the problem. The fact that your rationale is that it would otherwise be a coincidence is the proof that it leaves it up to an individual's original research to come to that conclusion. It doesn't actually state it anywhere nor would I consider it an obvious conclusion that doesn't require a lot of thought and comparison. While discussions are never a vote, I do think it's important for you to recognize that everyone currently in this discussion is aligned in that it appears to be WP:SYNTH problem. Grk1011 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of thought? The one thought it requires is the ability to count up to 26. And once again, this fact is used in over 100 articles at this point (in every Detailed voting from X (Semi-Final Y) table), and nobody raised questions as far as I'm aware — IмSтevan talk 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the most likely thing is that the order is the ranking for those semi-finals, the problem is that we cannot prove it because it is not specified anywhere, and assuming that simply out of inertia is what is speculative, because they don't say they continue to strictly maintain the order there. We don't have conclusive evidence (the detailed full ranking) and we can't trust the maybes. The fact that we're making the same mistake since 2023 because no one has noticed this before, doesn't make it less speculative.
And from speculative data, you synthesize and create the "results from" table, which is a double violation of the guidelines. And any secondary source that performs this same synthesis will be committing the same violations, because it won't be based on reliable data either (since it won't have the full detailed ranking either). Ferclopedio (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would point to WP:COMMONSENSE because why would we doubt that there is suddenly a lack of order — IмSтevan talk 13:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not disputing the fact that it's probably right, or that the ordering here isn't correct; the problem is that we can't say for certain. You're making an assertion that this is the "truth" based on multiple sources of information, basically piecing together a puzzle from the results of the individual country data, but we have no single source that says that this is the RotW results beyond the top 10. That's literally the definition of synthesis, and that is something expressly discouraged on Wikipedia. Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. This isn't just guidance either, this is Wikipedia policy. If you have a continued issue with this then I suggest you raise this to arbitration, because it sounds like we're at an impasse. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a single source that says this is the RotW results beyond the top 10, it's in the article, but you commented the tables out regardless. The source was at the top of every table, and I'll leave it here as well — IмSтevan talk 09:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would posit that that article, published 3 days ago, was based entirely off of your work, therefore this ref violates WP:CIRCULAR. Also given the similarities between your username and the known author of this article, I would also posit it's very likely that you wrote this article, which would be a massive WP:COI violation if true. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't violate WP:CIRCULAR since it's not based off Wikipedia, as the article states. These statements would be a COI if the author of the article (you stated that it's me) was a representative for the Eurovision Song Contest in general, the EBU, the 2023, 2024 or 2025 contests or the Rest of the World, for which there is no evidence. Perhaps re-reading what WP:COI is would help, or you could talk us through as to how you came to the conclusion of this being a COI. Which connection, interest or relationship that I have puts me in a position in which I cannot objectively edit the article? — IмSтevan talk 09:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the article Zato, autor ovog članka je odvojio par sati svog vremena i proučavao podatke koje znamo, a to je gde je ostatak sveta rangirao neku državu u odnosu na druge države.. Translation: So, the author of this article took a few hours of his time and studied the data we do know, which is where the rest of the world ranked a country relative to other countries. This is literally saying the same things as above, that it's taking multiple sources of information and synthesising a unified position.
I do not believe we can rely on ESCSerbia in this case, as given how closely it mirrors Wikipedia on this I believe it is now a tainted source on this matter. I still believe that you also authored this article: there's a very clear similarity between your username and the author's name; you are both intrisically involved in pursuing this topic; and given the userboxes on your profile I assume that you are Serbian, and therefore in a position to write an article in Serbian about this exact topic. Again, I concede it's perfectly conceivable that these rankings are valid and correct, but we can't use it because of the SYNTH and OR issues. And until the EBU point blank says "these are the rankings below 10th place" I don't believe we ever can now.
The COI issue here would be that you, as potentially the author of this source, would have an external relationship that you haven't declared, and therefore you would be attempting to circumvent Wikipedia policy by publishing original research externally and then trying to cite it as a source within Wikipedia within your own edits. As such, you would be pursuing an agenda to undermine Wikipedia policy. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally saying the same things as above, that it's taking multiple sources of information and synthesising a unified position. Sources are not bound by Wikipedia policy, including SYNTH and OR. @Jochem van Hees, Grk1011, and Ferclopedio: requested a secondary source, and one was provided. The EBU is not end-all-be-all of sources regarding Eurovision articles because again, if that were the case, we wouldn't even be making articles, we'd just be leaving links to eurovision.tv and ebu.ch and telling people to read necessary information there. What you are citing as a COI issue would actually be a question regarding WP:EXPERT — IмSтevan talk 09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they're not, and of course the EBU is not the "be all and end all" when it comes to Eurovision sources. But if what has happened here is what I believe, which is you didn't like that we pushed back on the SYNTH issue so you used your connections to create a source (two days after the initial discussion above was opened) to then be used within Wikipedia, is a massive COI issue. I refer you specifically to WP:SELFCITE on this, and given the timing of the article being published I believe it is a massive red flag, particularly around how any SELFPUB sources must conform to the content policies, which includes SYNTH.
As for EXPERT, per point 7 on the advice to expert editors: Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about themself and [t]his may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. That has almost certainly not been met here, if my suspicions are correct. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that any of your arguments on SELFCITE and SELFPUB hold up if your suspicions are correct, so let's let the other tagged users weigh in, as we're probably never going to come to an agreement here — IмSтevan talk 10:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will quote myself from above: any secondary source that performs this same synthesis will be committing the same violations, because it won't be based on reliable data either (since it won't have the full detailed ranking either). So no, I haven't asked for a secondary source because I don't think any can reliably provide that data either, since the full ranking hasn't been made public, so it's impossible for any source to do so unless they made it up. And this will be the case until the EBU specifically says: "These are the rankings below tenth place". And I said that on purpose because I foresaw that a situation like this could come. So please don't name me asking something I haven't ask.
And I totally agree with Sims2aholic8 word for word. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to agree with Ferclopedio, Jochem van Hees, and Sims2aholic8. I am also troubled by you writing an article for a website that you then hoped to use as a source here. While it seems we are at an impasse (at least in convincing you), I would say it's clear that there is a consensus overall. If one editor still objects, but all others involved are in an agreement, I think that's the end of the discussion. Grk1011 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I am also troubled by you writing an article for a website that you then hoped to use as a source here" You've accused me of two things:
  • That I am the author
  • That the article was written specifically to be used as a source on Wikipedia
I now expect these claims to be proven — IмSтevan talk 18:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that can't be proven despite all the indications, because you, who would be the only one with that information, haven't made it public. Just as those rankings after the 10th place can't be proven despite all the indications because the EBU, which is the only one with that information, hasn't made it public.
Regardless of whether you or someone else wrote that source, and with what intentions it was written, it is not based on irrefutable data, proves nothing, and cannot be used. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now expect these claims to be proven – are we in a courtroom? Why don't you just say if it was you or not?
On Wikipedia, the goal is to collaborate on writing an encyclopedia, not to battle against each other to see who wins with adding something to an article. This goes for everyone here. Policies and guidelines should be understood in spirit, not be used as sticks to beat the other with. For example, if we were to come to community consensus that a source can be used, then the SELFCITE guideline should not be an issue here. (Though it's hard to reach consensus if we don't know if we have a COI in our midst...)
As for my opinion: my main issue was the lack of verifiability. This has improved now that there is a secondary source, although I doubt that it would pass as reliable by Wikipedia's standards (which I'm no expert on). A bigger thing I have doubts about is whether this topic is notable to begin with, especially given that it's apparently very hard to find a good source. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This escalated way above what I had intended, so for the sake of resolving this and not driving a wedge between myself and the community, as I think we collaborated and compromised in good spirit for years, I'll just lay it all out here. I am the author of the article (duh), but the source was not written to be used as a source on Wikipedia; there is no benefit to doing so as the exposure is minimal, and anybody looking for certain data can find the original article regardless. The article and the data on the Wikipedia page (before the source) were written at the same time. I was doing my research for the article and was adding it to Wikipedia alongside it. Since it's the off-season, it took a few days for the team to green light it, so it was published later. I'm truly sorry for taking time out of your day to deal with this, but I still believe that just like many Eurovision nerds, data is important and interesting, which gave birth to said article — IмSтevan talk 21:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, data is important and interesting, and it's a pity we can't publish those lower rankings, but they're not verifiable so far. Let's hope the EBU will one day publish the full detailed rankings so they can be added without breaking any rules. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the transparency. The fact that it was checked by others should help with its reliability. At least I won't object to it being used. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intervision 2025

[edit]

I think we should be a bit careful regarding the structure of Intervision by year articles. It's tempting to present the data as if these countries are competing with their representatives, like in Eurovision, but there is no hard evidence to support this in most cases; rather, sometimes the organisers simply pick the contestant. These articles should be copying Eurovision by year articles to an extent, but be wary of the contests' major differences — IмSтevan talk 04:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a lot of uncertainty and missing information about this contest, and whether the artists will be billed as "representing" the countries in the same way as at Eurovision is definitely one of them. I think how the article is currently structured strikes the right balance in that regard, e.g. not listing broadcasters in the participants table since it appears to be a direct choice of either the Kremlin or the other governments taking part, but given that the vast majority of sources out there at present make a direct link between the artist competing and the country (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), I think it's appropriate the country is listed, in the same way as it is in other international song contests. I do agree though that caution is required to make sure this article doesn't become a clone of Eurovision articles, since they are two very different contests with completely different goals. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today there was a press conference where they oficially announced that 20 countries will participate, it's now covered in the media too: [4] [5] Szyign (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Just be mindful of the above Szyign — IмSтevan talk 11:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you say is not true. There are a multitude of sources with comments from the organisers (mainly Shvydkoy) that confirm that the Ministries of Culture of the countries concerned are involved, so negotiations for participation took place with the governments of those countries. At meetings with the countries, Putin himself brought up the subject of participation in the Intervision (see Qatar). There is no way for the Kremlin to select a representative from, for example, Cuba. It is the responsibility of the ministry from the country concerned to select the representative. Organizarers regularly announce that a particular artist is representing a particular country, so no - countries should not be removed from the tables, because even on today's broadcast the screen did not show the names of the representatives, but only the flags and the names of the countries as those taking part. Take a look at the official social media of Intervision - the organisers announce that a particular artist will represent the country, with its flag and name. Szyign (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point I'm making. I'm not seeing any sources confirming that all participants are selected by their respective countries (their respective ministries), so please add them. And if this is the case, then a new column is needed to designate that the ministries are competing, much like broadcasters in ESC. From a personal stand point I'd love to hear which government agency is picking the United States' representative. — IмSтevan talk 12:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First source that came to my mind - the whole process of selection of the representantive was held by the ministry of Kyrgyzstan, the submissions were held on their website and everything was announced by them [6] [7] Szyign (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The participation was discussed with the governments and their ministry, examples: qatar; [8] and china [9] Szyign (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the ministry of culture of kazakhstan was the one who confirmed to russian media they're choosing the representative of kazakhstan and will announce it in june [10] [11] [12] [13] Szyign (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another one [14] Szyign (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:

The map is way too small in the infobox. Some countries are straight up invisible, like Qatar. Any suggestions? — IмSтevan talk 10:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. There's only so much you can do with a world map — IмSтevan talk 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox song contest regarding proposed changes to the template structure. The thread is Template changes. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussions

[edit]

Hey, have brought up Euromix and ESCSpot over on the sources page )Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests/Sources). Would love to get some consensus on these as they are being used a fair bit now and if a source is being leaned on more than once in a while it would be great to have an understanding of to what extent we can trust them Toffeenix (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URL change voting results "Netherlands"

[edit]

Information: Some time ago, eurovision.tv changed its URLs for detailed voting results regarding the Netherlands. For example, what once was https://eurovision.tv/event/frankfurt-1957/final/results/the-netherlands has become https://eurovision.tv/event/frankfurt-1957/final/results/netherlands (without "the-"). The original URLs are dead ("Page not found"). This has implications for the referenced URLs in the detailed voting results section in almost all "Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest"+year articles where the old URL is still included, except for the newest. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EurovisionLibrarian. Fixed! Ferclopedio (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that we have the same problem with North Macedonia URLs, which were previously "fyr-macedonia" and now link to "north-macedonia". As with the Netherlands' URLs the current links are now dead, and this goes all the way to 2022, three years after the country's name change.
Another thing to note, for both the Netherlands and North Macedonia, is that the archive URLs are either going to need to be changed to reflect the change in URL, or removed completely, which is probably the easiest to achieve through automation given there is also a timestamp component to the archive URLs. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can also add Czechia to the list, as URLs before 2023 are "czech-republic", leading to the same errors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add Turkiye to the list — IмSтevan talk 15:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed North Macedonia, the Czech Republic, and Turkey.
Any other that would need to be fixed? Ferclopedio (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasts

[edit]

Is there a reason why for example the Estonian SSR is shown separately from the Soviet Union in broadcasting schedules where ETV broadcast an edition, but the same is not true for Yugoslav republics? — IмSтevan talk 11:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is a late reply but I do think the Estonian SSR broadcast should be listed under the Soviet Union. It's not like they were different countries in 1990.
Edit: I've looked a bit more and also noticed that broadcasts for Netherlands Antilles, Belgian Congo, Greenland, Faroe Islands etc. are listed in the tables for broadcasts by other competing countries. I don't think these are historically considered "countries" at the time of the contest which they broadcast, but they do have a degree of autonomy which might warrant their broadcasts to be put in a separate table to the competing countries. If they weren't to be relisted under their respective "country" (e.g. Netherlands for Netherlands Antilles, Denmark for Faroe Islands etc.) then should the title of the other broadcasts table be changed from "Broadcasters and commentators in non-participating countries" to something that acknowledges that there are autonomous territories/areas/"countries" in that table as well? Spleennn (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I had listed Estonia separately from the other nations of the Soviet Union was because Eesti Televisioon was only broadcast within the Estonian SSR, as opposed to Soviet Central Television which was broadcast throughout the Soviet Union. It's highly possible that ETV took the exact same feed as CT USSR, but it felt a bit disingenuous to list ETV under the Soviet Union when it was only available in what is now Estonia. This is different from the situation in Yugoslavia, as there was no central channel that covered all republics. I appreciate that the wording of the table caption could be tweaked; this was something I believe was proposed a while back but possibly reverted since?
I also believe a bit of discussion is needed around how these tables are laid out generally. There's a part of me that would like to see radio broadcasts being listed in a separate table to television broadcasts, given that radio broadcasts have always been optional, but also mindful that we don't want too many tables within this section just for the sake of it. I also have a question around what constitutes a "participating country". One key example I have is where to place any broadcasts within France's various overseas departments and territories; yes from a legal perspective there are parts of France in the Caribbean or the Indian Ocean that are considered the same as metropolitan France, but it feels weird to me that we list separate broadcasts on distinct channels in e.g. Martinique or Guadeloupe, even if these channels are part of France Télévisions, within the "participating countries" table when these areas as so far removed geographically from the rest of France. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has made me come to the realisation that maybe the broadcast tables should be split by participating broadcasters and non-participating broadcasters (even if the country that broadcaster is from is participating). This would make a split between "mandatory" and "optional" broadcasts – which is something you mentioned – since all participating broadcasters are supposed to broadcast the event on at least one of their channels. Spleennn (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sims2aholic8, there is nothing weird or unusual for a country to have part of its territory far away from its mainland, and considering it to have the same status as the mainland. Yes, the case of France is extreme due to the numerous territories and the vast distances, but I can tell you that for them they are part of France just as much as for the Spanish the Canary Islands are Spain, for the Portuguese the Azores are Portugal, and for Americans Hawaii is the United States, and for them it is something normal. So if the French overseas DROMs and COMs are considered part of the country, and the television stations broadcasting there are owned by France Télévisions, the most normal thing is to list them under France as the participating country and under France Télévisions as the participating broadcaster, even if it seems strange to a foreigner for the distances.
As for ETV in the Estonian SSR, I also think it should be listed under the Soviet Union. Especially since, according to the CT USSR Wikipedia article itself, ETV at that time was only a regional station of the broadcaster. Yes, I know the article's claim isn't fully referenced, but the evidence is there, and there should be someone out there who could confirm this. And the fact that ETV only broadcast in a small part of the Soviet Union can be addressed with a note.
And maybe broadcast tables should be divided between participating and non-participating broadcasters, it's something to consider and weigh the implications. Ferclopedio (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some pros I can think of straight away to splitting by participating/non-participating broadcaster:
  • Separating the tables by participating and non-participating broadcasters will reduce a lot of the arbitrariness that comes with categorising by countries. The definition of country comes into scrutiny when dealing with cases like Greenland, Faroe Islands, Martinique etc. but splitting by participant status will avoid any debate surrounding this. Instead categorising them based on whether the broadcast is done by a participating broadcaster (as would be the case for Martinique) or a non-participating broadcaster (as would be the case for Greenland and Faroe Islands).
  • Additionally and like I've already mentioned, broadcasts are mandatory for participating broadcasters and optional for non-participating broadcasters and showing this split could be beneficial to readers.
And here are some cons or issues about this change that need to be discussed:
  • Belgium swaps broadcasters every year and so the non-participating broadcaster in any given year would be in a separate table to the participating one. Separating RTBF and VRT in this regard seems weird to me even though I can't really put it to words why. I could just be stuck in the mindset of viewing broadcasts as per-country rather than per-broadcaster and a mindset shift would cause this to make more sense.
  • Having a "Country" column in the participating broadcaster table is easy as the broadcaster is already tied to a country in ESC. However, this isn't true for non-participating broadcasters and so if there is a "Country" column in those tables then they would have to be designated somewhat arbitrarily. For example, should the broadcast by SvF in 1990 be counted under Faroe Islands or Denmark? Legally, the Faroe Islands is a part of Denmark, but can SvF really be called a Danish broadcaster?
Spleennn (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's nothing weird or unusual about countries having territories in other parts of the world; I am very well aware of geopolitics in this regard. What I was trying to get at is, yes La Première is now part of the wider France Télévisions (only from 2004 it should be added however), and while of course France has had artists from its various DOM-TOMs compete at Eurovision or in its national selections, in my head "French participation" does not extend past metropolitan France. Maybe that's just my own personal head canon, and it may not stack up in reality, but that's my current view. I know legally there's a big difference between Martinique, considered an integral part of France and part of the European Union, and other overseas territories of other countries like the Falkland Islands, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Aruba etc., but personally when it comes to broadcasting I think they should be treated similarly.
Changing from a country lens to a broadcaster lens could solve some of these questions; however, as I mentioned above, you would have a situation where French overseas departments are listed under non-participants before 2005 (because Réseau France Outre-mer was a separate entity and only joined France Télévisions in 2004) and then from 2005 would be listed in the participants. Like the Belgian example above, you would also have to split out radio broadcasters which are not part of the same organisation as the television broadcaster (e.g. Sveriges Radio is a completely separate entity to Sveriges Television). Also how would you approach Germany's broadcast situation, where one of Germany's public broadcasters competes on behalf of ARD but other broadcasters may air the show on TV or radio (e.g. in 2024 Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg provided radio coverage of the final but didn't participate as this was done by Norddeutscher Rundfunk). I've included two examples below, one for 1984 and one for 2024, to give a good overview of how changing from a country lens to a broadcaster lens would work. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, the examples you have provided are clearer than the ones already on their respective Wikipedia page. Addressing some of the points you have mentioned:
  • The French overseas territories being listed as non-participants makes sense to me as the broadcasters they were represented by weren't participating. They were eventually incorporated into France Télévisions and that is even reflected in how France selected their entries, as RFO took part in France's national finals in 2006 and 2007. I think what is odd about this is that the non-participant table still has a "Country/territory" column, showing Martinique as having broadcast the contest separately despite being politically a part of France. I don't think the "Country/territory" column should be removed however, as it increases readibility of the article; since without it the table would almost entirely be acronyms.
  • For radio organisations, the non-participating broadcaster of Belgium, and the non-participating broadcasters in Germany, if they weren't competing then they did not have to broadcast the contest. I believe making this distinction within the article is important since any broadcast by these organisations in years they didn't participate are "extra" or "optional". For that reason, splitting them into a separate table is not too farfetched to me. The new tables also reflect how the Eurovision Song Contest works; being broadcaster-centric rather than country-centric.
Spleennn (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand better your point around the French overseas territories from that point of view, so if the tables are reorganised I think that is a reasonable solution.
Given ESC is a television event, and has always been such even going back to 1956, all radio broadcasts are therefore optional, even from those organisations that have a single broadcaster responsible for both radio and television. If the tables are to be reorganised into participating and non-participating broadcasters, it then seems a bit of an anomaly to list radio broadcasts in the same table as television broadcasts. I can see two ways to address this: one would be to split all radio broadcasts out from the "participating broadcasters" table into the "non-participating broadcasters" table, which would then become a table with TV broadcasts by non-participating broadcasters and radio broadcasts by all broadcasters; the other would be to separate all radio broadcasts, regardless of country of origin, into their own table, essentially then creating three tables, two for TV broadcasts by participating and non-participating broadcasters and one for all radio broadcasts. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe radio broadcasts should be split into a separate table. You're under the impression that TV broadcasts are mandatory when in actuality it is just any broadcast. Take for example Monaco in 1959 which only broadcast the contest on radio. By your logic, Monaco should be removed from the participant table, which doesn't seem right. If a competing broadcaster broadcast the contest on radio, I see no reason why it shouldn't be listed with the television broadcast of that same broadcaster. Spleennn (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is presented in the tables at present is the broadcasts that we know; it is very likely that Monaco did in fact broadcast the contest on television, but we do not have any sources to back this up. There are many gaps for contests older than 15-20 years where we have gaps in television broadcast plans for those years, but there was always an understanding that if you're participating you have to broadcast it on television. There has never been a radio-only broadcaster which has taken part, all participating broadcasters have had television operations. Also, in this particular case, the Monegasque radio broadcast would be listed in the non-participants table anyway, as Télé Monte-Carlo and Radio Monte-Carlo were two separate organisations, and it was TMC that participated in the contest on behalf of Monaco. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional examples below to cover the latter of the two scenarios I presented above. Splitting radio broadcasts into a separate table under the lens of focussing these tables on participating and non-participating broadcasters I believe alleviates some inconsistencies about radio broadcasts, as some countries have a much bigger tradition of broadcasting the contest on radio compared to others. In the latter case broadcasters in these countries have never or very rarely broadcast the contest on radio, because public radio networks were not combined with television, the radio networks are/were not EBU members, or just because that tradition has never existed or was rarely employed.
Splitting out radio broadcasts, which for all intents and purposes was and still is optional for broadcasters, is a much more sensible option than lumping any broadcasts from radio-only broadcasters (e.g. Sveriges Radio, Polskie Radio, Ukrainian Radio before 2017 when it merged to form Suspilne) with the non-participating broadcasters while also hosting radio broadcast in the participating broadcasters table, particularly when you consider any involvement of the radio stations on the national selection process by the television branch is inconsistent across countries, e.g. Sveriges Radio regularly broadcasts and has involvement with Melodifestivalen before, but in other countries apart from broadcasting Eurovision they may have zero involvement in the actual participation of that country. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just have one table showing all broadcasts? Why even split participating/non-participating — IмSтevan talk 21:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because for most years I believe there is way too much information to contain within a single table. I even think the main participating countries broadcast table in most recent years is already too big and could do with splitting, which is acceptable per MOS:TABLESPLIT: For very long tables, manageability and maintenance of the page may be better served by breaking information up into several smaller tables instead of one extremely long one. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed scenario of two tables for TV and one table for radio is strange. I mean, I understand your points on them, but looking at the tables is confusing to have two tables for TV and only for radio. If I felt confused while understanding the situation, the average reader's mind will implode.
Certainly, the ESC is a television event between television services, and this is reaffirmed by the rules every year when they state that "the television services of the EBU member broadcasters blablabla participate in the ESC", but I assume that they participate representing the whole company; and that company, as a member broadcaster of the EBU, owns the broadcasting rights and can broadcast it on any of its channels and stations (being mandatory to broadcast it on at least one television channel). So, when I look at the table of participating broadcasters, I expect to find all the broadcasts from the same broadcaster together, regardless of the broadcasting medium. I mean, I expect to find all the BBC broadcasts together, whether it's TV, radio, online, or smoke signals. This is true as television and radio companies are increasingly merging, their services are becoming more integrated, and the separation between media is becoming increasingly blurred. And it is even more true when radio broadcasting is often simply broadcasting on the radio the audio from the television broadcast (including television commentary). Yes, radio broadcasting is optional, but it is also optional for broadcasters to air the contest on their secondary television channels and international feeds, and these would be anyway in the "TV participating broadcasters" table.
In the case of Germany, the participating broadcaster is ARD, it simply delegates the actual organisation of the participation to one of its members, who participate on behalf of the whole consortium, and the event is broadcast on the main channel of ARD nationwide. So, I also expect to find all the broadcasts of all the members of the consortium together. The same goes for the Netherlands and its complex broadcasting system.
In the case of Belgium, I also have that je ne sais quoi feeling. The alternation between broadcasters is a tacit understanding between them, and since one participates representing Belgium and the other is always there, from the outside it seems that it represents both. I don't know the internal story between them, and how this is seen within Belgium, but from abroad this is how it seems.
(Just a note about Sweden, SR was initially responsible for radio and television services, it wasn't until 1980 that the television service was separated into a different company (SVT).)
And I also have the same feeling for companies that were legally different but that once depended on the same entity, one was a spin-off of the other, shared the legal framework and often even the same facilities and staff, and that eventually ended up merging. I'm referring for example to RTP and RDP, TVE and RNE, or even SR and SVT. I find it strange to see them on different tables, but in this case it is more difficult to justify not separating them.
What I do find totally strange, even amateurish, is to find a region of a country in the column of countries and territories. A region in a country is not a territory in the sense that it has in this context. I mean, I find out of place to find Martinique listed as much as if it were Baden-Württemberg or Tuscany. I think it should be listed as France, and if the broadcast coverage area is wanted, a note can be added.
In short, this is just my point of view, and I still don't know if we've gained enough from the change to make it worthwhile, as it still has its drawbacks. But if I have to choose, I prefer the first proposed scenario (of two tables) to the second (of three). Ferclopedio (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand some of your points above, however I have to set the record straight on a few of them:
  • On ARD, yes there are a couple of television channels which are run by ARD itself, which have input from the various regional broadcasters; however these broadcasters also have their own television channels, and most importantly all radio stations are run exclusively by these regional broadcasters. As I see it, yes there's going to be a degree of interaction between them, but it's very much the same as interaction between EBU members only on a German national level rather than international. So any radio broadcasts not conducted by the broadcaster responsible for the German participation are in my mind "optional". Additionally, all regional broadcasters are themselves members of the EBU individually (see here), so while yes ARD is the parent organisation and has overall responsibility for competing in Eurovision on behalf of Germany (since only one entry is allowed per country), so it's a lot more complicated than simply all ARD member broadcasts are considered the "participating broadcaster".
  • As for the "amateurish" suggestion of splitting regions, it's not always as simple to classify these, because every country is set up differently. Taking a couple of examples, specifically overseas France, the kingdom of the Netherlands, and British overseas territories, each country takes different approaches to the various bits of land they own/control. Some parts of France, the overseas departments and regions, are considered analogous to departments in metropolitan France, whereas other islands have various different relationships with France, collectivities or territories, which are not as close to a department or territory. With the kingdom of the Netherlands, taking Aruba as an example, this is considered on par with the Netherlands, whereas Bonaire is considered a municipality within the Netherlands. Conversely, there are no overseas territories belonging to the UK, as well as the Crown Dependencies, which form part of the UK itself. With all this in mind, the main thing I was trying to get at with this proposal was to try and bring some consistency to this, and basically list any broadcasts outside of the "parent country" for want of a better word as a non-participating country. I know it's not a perfect solution, nor is it expressely accurate from a legal perspective, but it seemed the best compromise rather than having to explain the legal make-up of each of these countries in depth.
It appears I'm on to a losing case with this proposal anyway. The other proposal I would suggest is reformulating the tables to list all broadcasts in two separate tables, one for television and one for radio, regardless of their point of origin or whether said country was actually competing in the event (since this info is already present in the participating countries table anyway). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

Participating/non participating broadcasters

[edit]
Participating broadcasters (1984)
Country Broadcaster Channel(s) Commentator(s)
 Austria ORF FS2 Ernst Grissemann
 Belgium RTBF RTBF1, Télé 2
 Cyprus CyBC RIK, A Programma
 Denmark DR DR TV Jørgen de Mylius
 Finland YLE TV1 Heikki Seppälä [fi]
Rinnakkaisohjelma [fi] Jaakko Salonoja [fi]
 France Antenne 2 Léon Zitrone
 Germany ARD Deutsches Fernsehen Ado Schlier [de]
 Ireland RTÉ RTÉ 1 Gay Byrne
RTÉ Radio 1 Larry Gogan
 Italy RAI Rai Due, RaiStereoUno [it] Antonio De Robertis
 Luxembourg CLT RTL Télévision
RTL plus
 Netherlands NOS Nederland 1 Ivo Niehe
 Norway NRK NRK Fjernsynet Roald Øyen
NRK P1 Erik Heyerdahl [no]
 Portugal RTP RTP1
 Spain TVE TVE 2 José-Miguel Ullán
 Sweden SVT TV1 Fredrik Belfrage
  Switzerland SRG SSR TV DRS Bernard Thurnheer [de]
TSR Serge Moisson [fr]
TSI
 Turkey TRT TRT Televizyon Başak Doğru [tr]
 United Kingdom BBC BBC1 Terry Wogan
 Yugoslavia JRT TV Beograd 1, TV Novi Sad [sr], TV Prishtina, TV Titograd 1, TV Zagreb 1 Oliver Mlakar
TV Koper-Capodistria
TV Ljubljana 1
TV Skopje 1
Non-participating broadcasters (1984)
Country/Territory Broadcaster Channel(s) Commentator(s)
 Australia SBS Network 0–28
 Belgium BRT TV1 Luc Appermont
BRT 2
 Czechoslovakia ČST ČST2
 Faroe Islands SvF
 Greenland KNR KNR
 Iceland RÚV Sjónvarpið No commentator
 Jordan JTV JTV2
 Martinique RFO RFO-Martinique [fr]
 Netherlands Antilles TeleCuraçao
 Poland TP TP1
 Portugal RDP Antena 1
 United Kingdom BFBS BFBS Radio Richard Nankivell
Participating broadcasters (2024)
Country Broadcaster Channel(s) Show(s) Commentator(s)
 Albania RTSH RTSH 1, RTSH Muzikë, Radio Tirana All shows Andri Xhahu
 Armenia AMPTV Armenia 1 All shows Hrachuhi Utmazyan [hy] and Sevak Hakobyan
 Australia SBS SBS All shows Myf Warhurst and Joel Creasey
 Austria ORF ORF 1 All shows Andi Knoll
FM4 Final Jan Böhmermann and Olli Schulz
 Azerbaijan İTV All shows Nurlana Jafarova [az]
 Belgium RTBF Tipik SF1 Maureen Louys and Jean-Louis Lahaye [fr]
La Une SF2, final
VivaCité Final
 Croatia HRT HRT 1 All shows Duško Ćurlić
HR 2 Zlatko Turkalj [hr]
 Cyprus CyBC RIK 1, RIK Sat All shows Melina Karageorgiou and Hovig Demirjian
RIK Trito Unknown
 Czechia ČT ČT2 All shows Vašek Matějovský, Patricie Kaňok Fuxová and Dominika Hašková
 Denmark DR DR1 All shows Ole Tøpholm
 Estonia ERR ETV All shows Estonian: Marko Reikop
ETV+ Russian: Aleksandr Hobotov and Julia Kalenda
ETV2 Estonian Sign Language interpretation
 Finland Yle Yle TV1, TV Finland All shows Finnish: Mikko Silvennoinen
Swedish: Eva Frantz and Johan Lindroos [sv]
Yle Radio Suomi Finnish: Toni Laaksonen [fi] and Sanna Pirkkalainen
Yle X3M Swedish: Eva Frantz and Johan Lindroos
Yle Areena [fi; sv] Inari Sámi: Heli Huovinen and Northern Sámi: Aslak Paltto [fi]
SF1, final Russian: Levan Tvaltvadze
 France France Télévisions Culturebox Semi-finals Nicky Doll
France 2 Final Stéphane Bern and Laurence Boccolini
 Georgia GPB 1TV All shows Nika Lobiladze
 Germany ARD/NDR One Semi-finals Thorsten Schorn [de]
Das Erste Final
 Greece ERT ERT1 All shows Thanasis Alevras [el] and Jérôme Kaluta [el]
Deftero Programma Dimitris Meidanis
 Iceland RÚV RÚV All shows Guðrún Dís Emilsdóttir
RÚV 2 Icelandic Sign Language interpretation
Rás 2 SF1, final Guðrún Dís Emilsdóttir
 Ireland RTÉ RTÉ One SF1, final Marty Whelan
RTÉ2 SF2
RTÉ 2fm SF1, final Zbyszek Zalinski and Neil Doherty
 Israel IPBC Kan 11 Semi-finals Asaf Liberman [he] and Akiva Novick [he]
Final Asaf Liberman, Akiva Novick and Yoav Tzafir [he]
Kan 88, Kan Tarbut [he], Kan Bet [he] Unknown
 Italy RAI Rai 2 Semi-finals Gabriele Corsi and Mara Maionchi
Rai 1 Final
Rai Radio 2 All shows Diletta Parlangeli and Matteo Osso
 Latvia LTV LTV1 Semi-finals Toms Grēviņš [lv]
Final Toms Grēviņš and Lauris Reiniks
 Lithuania LRT LRT TV, LRT Radijas All shows Ramūnas Zilnys [lt]
 Luxembourg RTL RTL, RTL Radio [lb] All shows Luxembourgish: Raoul Roos and Roger Saurfeld
RTL Today English: Sarah Tapp and Meredith Moss
RTL Infos SF1, final French: Jerôme Didelot and Emma Sorgato
 Malta PBS TVM All shows No commentary
 Moldova TRM Moldova 1, Radio Moldova All shows Ion Jalbă and Elena Stegari
 Netherlands NPO/AVROTROS NPO 1, BVN All shows Cornald Maas and Jacqueline Govaert
NPO Radio 2 Final Carolien Borgers [nl]
 Norway NRK NRK1 All shows Marte Stokstad [no]
NRK P1 Final Jon Marius Hyttebakk
 Poland TVP TVP1, TVP Polonia All shows Artur Orzech
 Portugal RTP RTP1, RTP Internacional All shows José Carlos Malato and Nuno Galopim
RTP África SF1, final
 San Marino SMRTV San Marino RTV All shows Lia Fiorio and Gigi Restivo
 Serbia RTS RTS1, RTS Svet All shows Duška Vučinić
Radio Beograd 1 [sr] SF1 Katarina Epstein
Final Katarina Epstein and Nikoleta Dojčinović
 Slovenia RTVSLO TV SLO 1 SF1, final Mojca Mavec [sl]
TV SLO 2 SF2
Radio Val 202 SF1, final Maj Valerij and Igor Bračič
 Spain RTVE La 2 SF1 Spanish: Julia Varela and Tony Aguilar
La 1 SF2
Final Spanish: Julia Varela and Tony Aguilar
Catalan: Sònia Urbano and Xavi Martínez [es]
TVE Internacional All shows Spanish: Julia Varela and Tony Aguilar
Radio Nacional Final Spanish: David Asensio, Sara Calvo, Ángela Fernández, Manu Martín-Albo and Luis Miguel Montes
Ràdio 4 Catalan: Sònia Urbano and Xavi Martínez
 Sweden SVT SVT1 All shows Swedish: Tina Mehrafzoon and Edward af Sillén
SVT Play Final Inari Sámi: Heli Huovinen and Northern Sámi: Aslak Paltto
  Switzerland SRG SSR RSI La 2 Semi-finals Italian: Ellis Cavallini and Gian-Andrea Costa
RSI La 1 Final
RTS 2 Semi-finals French: Jean-Marc Richard and Nicolas Tanner
RTS 1 Final French: Jean-Marc Richard, Nicolas Tanner and Julie Berthollet
SRF zwei Semi-finals German: Sven Epiney
SRF 1 Final
 Ukraine Suspilne Suspilne Kultura Semi-finals Timur Miroshnychenko
Final Timur Miroshnychenko and Vasyl Baidak [uk]
All shows Ukrainian Sign Language interpretation
Radio Promin Dmytro Zakharchenko and Lesia Antypenko
 United Kingdom BBC BBC One Semi-finals Scott Mills and Rylan Clark
Final Graham Norton
BBC Red Button All shows British Sign Language interpretation
BBC Radio 2 Semi-finals Richie Anderson
Final Scott Mills and Rylan Clark
Non-participating broadcasters (2024)
Country/Territory Broadcaster Channel(s) Show(s) Commentator(s)
 Belgium VRT VRT 1 All shows Peter Van de Veire
Radio 2 Final
 Brazil Zapping [es] Zapping Music Live Final Priscila Bertozzi
 Chile Zapping Zapping Channel Final Rayén Araya and Ignacio Lira
 Germany RBB Radio Eins [de] Final Amelie Ernst [de] and Max Spallek [de]
 Kosovo RTK RTK 1, Radio Kosovo 2 All shows Agron Krasniqi and Egzona Rafuna
 Montenegro RTCG TVCG 1 All shows Ivan Maksimović
Radio 98 Unknown
 North Macedonia MRT MRT 1, Radio Skopje All shows Aleksandra Jovanovska
 Peru Zapping Zapping Music Live Final Rayén Araya and Ignacio Lira
 Slovakia RTVS Rádio FM Final Daniel Baláž [sk], Lucia Haverlík, Pavol Hubinák and Juraj Malíček [sk]
 Sweden SR SR P4 All shows Carolina Norén
 United States NBC Peacock All shows No commentator
WJFD-FM Final Ewan Spence and Samantha Ross

Television (participating/non participating broadcasters) and radio (all broadcasters)

[edit]
TV – participating broadcasters (1984)
Country Broadcaster Channel(s) Commentator(s)
 Austria ORF FS2 Ernst Grissemann
 Belgium RTBF RTBF1, Télé 2
 Cyprus CyBC RIK
 Denmark DR DR TV Jørgen de Mylius
 Finland YLE TV1 Heikki Seppälä [fi]
 France Antenne 2 Léon Zitrone
 Germany ARD Deutsches Fernsehen Ado Schlier [de]
 Ireland RTÉ RTÉ 1 Gay Byrne
 Italy RAI Rai Due Antonio De Robertis
 Luxembourg CLT RTL Télévision
RTL plus
 Netherlands NOS Nederland 1 Ivo Niehe
 Norway NRK NRK Fjernsynet Roald Øyen
 Portugal RTP RTP1
 Spain TVE TVE 2 José-Miguel Ullán
 Sweden SVT TV1 Fredrik Belfrage
  Switzerland SRG SSR TV DRS Bernard Thurnheer [de]
TSR Serge Moisson [fr]
TSI
 Turkey TRT TRT Televizyon Başak Doğru [tr]
 United Kingdom BBC BBC1 Terry Wogan
 Yugoslavia JRT TV Beograd 1, TV Novi Sad [sr], TV Prishtina, TV Titograd 1, TV Zagreb 1 Oliver Mlakar
TV Koper-Capodistria
TV Ljubljana 1
TV Skopje 1
TV – non-participating broadcasters (1984)
Country/Territory Broadcaster Channel(s) Commentator(s)
 Australia SBS Network 0–28
 Belgium BRT TV1 Luc Appermont
 Czechoslovakia ČST ČST2
 Faroe Islands SvF
 Greenland KNR KNR
 Iceland RÚV Sjónvarpið No commentator
 Jordan JTV JTV2
 Martinique RFO RFO-Martinique [fr]
 Netherlands Antilles TeleCuraçao
 Poland TP TP1
Radio (1984)
Country/Territory Broadcaster Channel(s) Commentator(s)
 Belgium BRT BRT 2
 Cyprus CyBC A Programma
 Finland YLE Rinnakkaisohjelma [fi] Jaakko Salonoja [fi]
 Ireland RTÉ RTÉ Radio 1 Larry Gogan
 Italy RAI RaiStereoUno [it] Antonio De Robertis
 Norway NRK NRK P1 Erik Heyerdahl [no]
 Portugal RDP Antena 1
 United Kingdom BFBS BFBS Radio Richard Nankivell
TV – Participating broadcasters (2024)
Country Broadcaster Channel(s) Show(s) Commentator(s)
 Albania RTSH RTSH 1, RTSH Muzikë All shows Andri Xhahu
 Armenia AMPTV Armenia 1 All shows Hrachuhi Utmazyan [hy] and Sevak Hakobyan
 Australia SBS SBS All shows Myf Warhurst and Joel Creasey
 Austria ORF ORF 1 All shows Andi Knoll
 Azerbaijan İTV All shows Nurlana Jafarova [az]
 Belgium RTBF Tipik SF1 Maureen Louys and Jean-Louis Lahaye [fr]
La Une SF2, final
 Croatia HRT HRT 1 All shows Duško Ćurlić
 Cyprus CyBC RIK 1, RIK Sat All shows Melina Karageorgiou and Hovig Demirjian
 Czechia ČT ČT2 All shows Vašek Matějovský, Patricie Kaňok Fuxová and Dominika Hašková
 Denmark DR DR1 All shows Ole Tøpholm
 Estonia ERR ETV All shows Estonian: Marko Reikop
ETV+ Russian: Aleksandr Hobotov and Julia Kalenda
ETV2 Estonian Sign Language interpretation
 Finland Yle Yle TV1, TV Finland All shows Finnish: Mikko Silvennoinen
Swedish: Eva Frantz and Johan Lindroos [sv]
Yle Areena [fi; sv] Inari Sámi: Heli Huovinen and Northern Sámi: Aslak Paltto [fi]
SF1, final Russian: Levan Tvaltvadze
 France France Télévisions Culturebox Semi-finals Nicky Doll
France 2 Final Stéphane Bern and Laurence Boccolini
 Georgia GPB 1TV All shows Nika Lobiladze
 Germany ARD/NDR One Semi-finals Thorsten Schorn [de]
Das Erste Final
 Greece ERT ERT1 All shows Thanasis Alevras [el] and Jérôme Kaluta [el]
 Iceland RÚV RÚV All shows Guðrún Dís Emilsdóttir
RÚV 2 Icelandic Sign Language interpretation
 Ireland RTÉ RTÉ One SF1, final Marty Whelan
RTÉ2 SF2
 Israel IPBC Kan 11 Semi-finals Asaf Liberman [he] and Akiva Novick [he]
Final Asaf Liberman, Akiva Novick and Yoav Tzafir [he]
 Italy RAI Rai 2 Semi-finals Gabriele Corsi and Mara Maionchi
Rai 1 Final
 Latvia LTV LTV1 Semi-finals Toms Grēviņš [lv]
Final Toms Grēviņš and Lauris Reiniks
 Lithuania LRT LRT TV All shows Ramūnas Zilnys [lt]
 Luxembourg RTL RTL All shows Raoul Roos and Roger Saurfeld
 Malta PBS TVM All shows No commentary
 Moldova TRM Moldova 1 All shows Ion Jalbă and Elena Stegari
 Netherlands NPO/AVROTROS NPO 1, BVN All shows Cornald Maas and Jacqueline Govaert
 Norway NRK NRK1 All shows Marte Stokstad [no]
 Poland TVP TVP1, TVP Polonia All shows Artur Orzech
 Portugal RTP RTP1, RTP Internacional All shows José Carlos Malato and Nuno Galopim
RTP África SF1, final
 San Marino SMRTV San Marino RTV All shows Lia Fiorio and Gigi Restivo
 Serbia RTS RTS1, RTS Svet All shows Duška Vučinić
 Slovenia RTVSLO TV SLO 1 SF1, final Mojca Mavec [sl]
TV SLO 2 SF2
 Spain RTVE La 2 SF1 Spanish: Julia Varela and Tony Aguilar
La 1 SF2
Final Spanish: Julia Varela and Tony Aguilar
Catalan: Sònia Urbano and Xavi Martínez [es]
TVE Internacional All shows Spanish: Julia Varela and Tony Aguilar
 Sweden SVT SVT1 All shows Swedish: Tina Mehrafzoon and Edward af Sillén
SVT Play Final Inari Sámi: Heli Huovinen and Northern Sámi: Aslak Paltto
  Switzerland SRG SSR RSI La 2 Semi-finals Italian: Ellis Cavallini and Gian-Andrea Costa
RSI La 1 Final
RTS 2 Semi-finals French: Jean-Marc Richard and Nicolas Tanner
RTS 1 Final French: Jean-Marc Richard, Nicolas Tanner and Julie Berthollet
SRF zwei Semi-finals German: Sven Epiney
SRF 1 Final
 Ukraine Suspilne Suspilne Kultura Semi-finals Timur Miroshnychenko
Final Timur Miroshnychenko and Vasyl Baidak [uk]
All shows Ukrainian Sign Language interpretation
 United Kingdom BBC BBC One Semi-finals Scott Mills and Rylan Clark
Final Graham Norton
BBC Red Button All shows British Sign Language interpretation
TV – Non-participating broadcasters (2024)
Country/Territory Broadcaster Channel(s) Show(s) Commentator(s)
 Belgium VRT VRT 1 All shows Peter Van de Veire
 Brazil Zapping [es] Zapping Music Live Final Priscila Bertozzi
 Chile Zapping Zapping Channel Final Rayén Araya and Ignacio Lira
 Kosovo RTK RTK 1 All shows Agron Krasniqi and Egzona Rafuna
 Montenegro RTCG TVCG 1 All shows Ivan Maksimović
 North Macedonia MRT MRT 1 All shows Aleksandra Jovanovska
 Peru Zapping Zapping Music Live Final Rayén Araya and Ignacio Lira
 United States NBC Peacock All shows No commentator
Radio (2024)
Country/Territory Broadcaster Channel(s) Show(s) Commentator(s)
 Albania RTSH Radio Tirana All shows Andri Xhahu
 Austria ORF FM4 Final Jan Böhmermann and Olli Schulz
 Belgium RTBF VivaCité Final French: Maureen Louys and Jean-Louis Lahaye [fr]
VRT Radio 2 Final Dutch: Peter Van de Veire
 Croatia HRT HR 2 All shows Zlatko Turkalj [hr]
 Cyprus CyBC RIK Trito All shows Unknown
 Finland Yle Yle Radio Suomi All shows Finnish: Toni Laaksonen [fi] and Sanna Pirkkalainen
Yle X3M Swedish: Eva Frantz and Johan Lindroos
 Germany RBB Radio Eins [de] Final Amelie Ernst [de] and Max Spallek [de]
 Greece ERT Deftero Programma All shows Dimitris Meidanis
 Iceland RÚV Rás 2 SF1, final Guðrún Dís Emilsdóttir
 Ireland RTÉ RTÉ 2fm SF1, final Zbyszek Zalinski and Neil Doherty
 Israel IPBC Kan 88, Kan Tarbut [he], Kan Bet [he] Final Unknown
 Italy RAI Rai Radio 2 All shows Diletta Parlangeli and Matteo Osso
 Kosovo RTK Radio Kosovo 2 All shows Agron Krasniqi and Egzona Rafuna
 Lithuania LRT LRT Radijas All shows Ramūnas Zilnys [lt]
 Luxembourg RTL RTL Radio [lb] All shows Luxembourgish: Raoul Roos and Roger Saurfeld
RTL Today English: Sarah Tapp and Meredith Moss
RTL Infos SF1, final French: Jerôme Didelot and Emma Sorgato
 Moldova TRM Radio Moldova All shows Ion Jalbă and Elena Stegari
 Montenegro RTCG Radio 98 All shows Unknown
 Netherlands NPO/AVROTROS NPO Radio 2 Final Carolien Borgers [nl]
 North Macedonia MRT Radio Skopje All shows Aleksandra Jovanovska
 Norway NRK NRK P1 Final Jon Marius Hyttebakk
 Serbia RTS Radio Beograd 1 [sr] SF1 Katarina Epstein
Final Katarina Epstein and Nikoleta Dojčinović
 Slovakia RTVS Rádio FM Final Daniel Baláž [sk], Lucia Haverlík, Pavol Hubinák and Juraj Malíček [sk]
 Slovenia RTVSLO Radio Val 202 SF1, final Maj Valerij and Igor Bračič
 Spain RTVE Radio Nacional Final Spanish: David Asensio, Sara Calvo, Ángela Fernández, Manu Martín-Albo and Luis Miguel Montes
Ràdio 4 Catalan: Sònia Urbano and Xavi Martínez
 Sweden SR SR P4 All shows Carolina Norén
 Ukraine Suspilne Radio Promin All shows Dmytro Zakharchenko and Lesia Antypenko
 United Kingdom BBC BBC Radio 2 Semi-finals Richie Anderson
Final Scott Mills and Rylan Clark
 United States NBC WJFD-FM Final Ewan Spence and Samantha Ross
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Song_Contests&oldid=1299795757"