Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Song Contests and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 30 days

Archived discussions from WikiProject Eurovision: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

Detailed televoting results

Should we show separate SMS/phone/online votes in the results table? I'm talking about the cases of Germany, Croatia, Benidorm Fest, etc. I know that broadcasters have published detailed results in this way, but I think all this information is not necessary and just takes up space unnecessarily. I'm only talking about those cases where votes are added up, i.e. no matter how they were cast, they are worth the same points

I suggest changing it from this:

Final
Draw	Artist	Song	Jury	Televote				Total	Place
Draw	Artist	Song	Jury	Phone	SMS	Total	Points	Total	Place
1	EoT	"Bye Bye Bye"	30	4,488	4,844	9,332	21	51	8
2	Natalli	"Dom si srcu mom"	2	2,549	987	3,536	8	10	15

To just this:

Final
Draw	Artist	Song	Jury	Televote		Total	Place
Draw	Artist	Song	Jury	Votes	Points	Total	Place
1	EoT	"Bye Bye Bye"	30	9,332	21	51	8
2	Natalli	"Dom si srcu mom"	2	3,536	8	10	15

Balandėliai (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think as long as we're not duplicating information then having multiple columns with votes from different sources is fine when these are provided by broadcasters, and I think providing this information is relevant to the reader. What I don't like to see is the same information being presented two different ways, e.g. the raw votes and the percentage share, which I believe is redundant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm as long as there is a valid reference. Sometimes we get close to running into WP:NOTSTATS issues, but the specific example here appears to be pretty straight forward and helpful for the reader (and not some sort of analysis for example). Grk1011 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove it from the main table, and somehow either put the numbers in the jury table, or make a separate televoting table altogether — IмSтevan ^talk 17:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-finals and the automatic qualifiers

Now that we've seen how the role of automatic qualifiers is executed following 2024, I think it's time to revisit the format of the semi-final tables. They clearly have an impact on how the show is structured, take up as much space as a competing act, are presented as competing acts, and one of the reasonings behind opening voting at the start of the final is that the audience already saw all competing acts previously. Personally, I looked at how Festivali i Këngës tables used to be formatted, where despite automatic qualifiers for the final apearing during the show to perform their entries, they are still competing acts. Here is my proposal:

Key: ‡ Automatic qualifiers

Participants of the first semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2025
R/O	Country	Artist	Song
1	Iceland	Væb	"Róa"
2	Poland	Justyna Steczkowska	"Gaja"
3	Slovenia	Klemen	"How Much Time Do We Have Left"
4	Estonia	Tommy Cash	"Espresso Macchiato"
–	Spain ‡	Melody	"Esa diva"
5	Ukraine	Ziferblat	"Bird of Pray"

— IмSтevan ^talk 17:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this issue already been discussed already? My take on this is that they are not competing, they're a bit like an interval act of some sort during the semis. Including them in the table is misleading as the table is mostly here for the results, which AQ don't have in the semis... Yoyo360^{message me} 11:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the previous discussion ended with us revisiting this at the next contest (now). Personally my thoughts have not changed. These tables are not really a run of show, but instead a way to present the results. Grk1011 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Grk pointed out, we were to wait to see how the shows work with them included, which we now have. Even if they don't compete in the semis, they are competing entries and are performed and presented as such, and I think they should have a spot in the table — IмSтevan ^talk 14:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that a further discussion is warranted, given we decided as a collective to wait and see how things panned out in Malmö and what the situation would eventually develop into for 2025. I concur with Grk1011 that my thoughts have also not changed on this. The tables are principally about the results of those shows, and since those six countries are not competing I believe it would be misleading to put them in this way. We don't have rows for any other opening or interval act, and although they are competing entries in the contest as a whole these are still guest performances for the semis and I don't believe they should be treated differently from those other guest performances. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much in favour of this idea. It feels a bit misleading that they are not included in the table that shows the running order of the songs. And without them being there it doesn't quite give the full picture. I do understand the arguments that these tables are mainly for the results, but since they are the only tables that also include the running order, it would make sense to include them. Alternatively, the running order should be included in the other more detailed table, maybe? Zouki08 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also want to raise a point regarding the fact that many people will come to this article shortly prior to or during the show to see who is performing, and at first glance it's not that reliable considering the absence of AQs — IмSтevan ^talk 21:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grk1011 and Sims2aholic8 here, and my views haven't changed either, the entries presented by the Big Five + host country during the semi-finals are not competing in the semi-final, and they are presented without a proper running order number. So including them in the table is misleading, in my opinion. Why not include the information about the "finalist guest performances" in prose? Like that, the nature of these performances would be more explicit and less prone to misinterpretation. This actually has been done in the 2024 article. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So... what if we just added a second table right after all the semi-finalists? This would separate the AQ countries from the semi-finalists and also show that those countries appeared in the semi-final, but had a different status. Something like this:

Automatic qualifiers of the first semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2025
Country	Artist	Song	Performs between
Spain	Melody	"Esa diva"	Estonia and Ukraine
Italy	Lucio Corsi	"Volevo essere un duro"	Belgium and Azerbaijan
Switzerland	Zoë Më	"Voyage"	Croatia and Cyprus

Balandėliai (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be down for that as well — IмSтevan ^talk 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a table might be overkill. It can just be mentioned as prose. Grk1011 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grk1011. Also I believe that adding this extra table would be a violation of MOS:PROSE. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that just a mention will be sufficient. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we use simpler wording in prose so that there's no doubt about who sings after whom and it's easier to read than it is now? Ferclopedio (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is many people will just look at the table. They won't bother with the prose since the table is where they expect to see the running order/competing songs — IмSтevan ^talk 16:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we somehow include it in the already existing running order tables? Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point of this discussion, and Yoyo360, Grk1011, EurovisionLibrarian and myself have all said we oppose adding these entries to the existing tables. These tables are principally for the results of the shows, not the entire contest. If you look at it from that lens, I don't see how adding the automatic finalists to these tables makes sense. We don't add in any opening or interval acts to these tables, or provide a point-by-point script of the show, so why should this be considered any differently just because they are competing in the final? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay I understand. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call for help with logos

Hi to all.

I've been reviewing the ESC logo files we are using throughout history in the contest articles, and most of them are fantastic. They're in SVG format and/or have a transparent background, giving the corresponding contest article infobox a polished look. I've recently been able to add eight new logos in SVG myself. But there are sixteen that I haven't been able to improve, these are:

Is there anyone who could help with this please? Ferclopedio (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basel meetup

Hi everyone! My humble myself and @Sims2aholic8 had the idea of organising a meetup among Wikipedians who contribute to this WikiProject. Since (probably) some of us will go to Basel for a mysterious event called the Eurovision Song Contest this May, we thought it would be a good idea to meet over a cup of coffee/tea, milkshake or espresso macchiatto. Who of you will be there and would like to come?

For a date, the proposal is Wednesday (14 May) during the afternoon. As for the location, if anyone knows a nice location in Basel, feel free to share it. Eurocafé could also be an option (it opens daily at 4pm). EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm up for this, but just wanted to make sure it got put into writing here too! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to languages

Raising a topic which could potentially be a can of worms but feeling it's worth the discussion. Ferclopedio has recently removed all links to French language from project articles, which is consistent with WP:OVERLINK, specifically: major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: [...] Languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish). It does raise a question however around which languages we should be linking to, since "major examples" within the context of Eurovision could be slightly different to outside the bubble. I think there are some clear-cut languages (German, Spanish, Italian) which I don't believe should be linked, but whether this extends to all "majority" languages within each country (e.g. Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Greek etc.) is another question. Any thoughts on this? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that inside our bubble, we shouldn't link any of those nationwide majority languages. That way, we treat them all equally. I would just leave their links in the "list of languages" article. In the rest of the articles, I would only leave not-nationwide less-known languages linked, as there may be people who are unfamiliar with them and need to look at the link. Ferclopedio (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the topic! I think what can be linked are "unexpected" languages for a specific entry, i.e. dialects, non-national languages (e.g. Udmurt for Russia 2012) but also cases like Italian for Latvia 2007, or languages with very rare appearances at the contest (like Irish for Ireland in 1972).

In contrast, Danish for entries from Denmark, English in general, Greek for Greece, cannot be considered to be unexpected in their individual cases and therefore don't have to be linked. That's surely not the end of the debate but I propose to have a sort of criterium like this to decide what languages should and should not be linked. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit weird to me that we would treat English from any country and a French/Italian entry from a country outside of the Francosphere or Italosphere differently though. Languages like French and Italian are very well known globally, so even if there is a rare case of an Austrian or Estonian entry in those languages, the principle of not linking to major examples of languages should still be the same in my opinion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same opinion here Ferclopedio (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing a few more thoughts out there on this. When you talk about "unexpected", that could have lots of different meanings depending on the context. As an example, is it unexpected for Belgium to send a song in French? Not really, given it's a French-majority speaking country. However, it might be unexpected if the Flemish broadcaster VRT sent a song in French (as they might well have done this year). Even English language songs at Eurovision can be unexpected depending on the country; if Sweden or Norway sent something in English no one pays attention, but if France or Italy sent something in English that would raise eyebrows, but at the same time probably only within the bubble. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! The criterion I proposed is context-sensitive, in the same way as linking to the Wikipedia article of the USA isn't helpful or interesting in most cases but in some cases, depending on the context, can be considered helpful.

If the WikiProject decided to go for a criterion which does not depend upon the context, I guess we would have to define which languages are always linked and which ones are never linked and find a criterion or mark which unambigously sends languages either to side A or to side B (number of native speakers higher than X? official status of the language being a national language in one of the participating countries? number of Eurovision entries sent in that language higher than X?). EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean. I suppose for me I was thinking where are we linking to languages the majority of the time, and that's in participant tables, where there may well be multiple of the same language in the same column. In that context it seems a bit weird if we didn't link to Italian next to Italy, but did link it next to Latvia, which comes after it alphabetically and therefore goes against the "link the first instance" guidance. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most clear criteria is not linking those with "official status of the language being a national-wide language". Not only in the participating countries, since we have Japanese, which is a very well-known language, and it makes no sense to link it. This includes Albanian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, etc. etc.

Looking at the list of languages we have, those that are not in that criteria, and that I think we should link, since people may not be familiar with them, are:

Abkhaz, Gheg Albanian, Amharic, Aramaic, Breton, Corsican, Crimean Tatar, Võro, Karelian, French Creole, Antillean Creole, Mühlviertlerisch, Styrian, Viennese German, Vorarlbergish, Ancient Greek, Pontic Greek, Broccolino, Latin, Samogitian, Neapolitan, Proto-Slavic, Romansch, Romani, Northern Sámi, Sanskrit, Serbo-Croatian, Chakavian, Torlakian, Sranan Tongo, Swahili, Finland Swedish, Vörå Swedish, Tahitian, Udmurt, Surzhyk, and Yankunytjatjara Ferclopedio (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with this approach. On the list you provided, I would remove Serbo-Croatian, Swahili and Finland Swedish: Swedish is a co-official language of Finland (and is listed as just Swedish on the main ESC articles anyway), Serbo-Croatian was the main language of Yugoslavia, and Swahili should be considered in the same way as Japanese given it is an official language in four African countries and has over 90 million speakers. I would also potentially add links to Irish, as although it is the national language of Ireland, its usage since the 1800s has declined significantly to the point where it is effectively a minority language. Also to note that some of these languages won't actually be listed in the main ESC articles, as the amount of the language included is too small to be listed as a main language. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added Serbo-Croatian to the list because, although it was the official language of Yugoslavia, I thought that a present-day reader might need clarification to know what language is that, as they might not be familiar with the fact that Serbo-Croatian was the official language of the country and that is the parent language of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. (I had to use the link myself to find out).

As for Irish, yes, it may be a minority language today, but it remains an official national language (and is even one of the official languages of the EU), and I don't think any reader who reads "Irish" would have any doubt that that is the national language of Ireland. The same thing happens with Maltese and Luxembourgish, although rarely used, no one will doubt which languages they are. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm happy enough with your explanation of those two languages, that we should leave Serbo-Croatian linked and remove the links to Irish, Maltese and Luxembourgish.

If there are no further comments or suggestions, I suggest we proceed with de-linking all major languages from our articles in 48 hours' time. :) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the above, I have just removed in the ESC and JESC contest, country, and country in year articles the links for the following 46 languages:

Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Belarusian Bosnian Bulgarian Catalan Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French Georgian German Greek Hebrew Hungarian Icelandic Irish Italian Japanese Kazakh Latvian Lithuanian Luxembourgish Macedonian Maltese Montenegrin Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovene Spanish Swahili Swedish Turkish Ukrainian Welsh

Some residual links for these languages may remain because usual link formatting was not used in them; these links should also be removed if found. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino 2024 article split discussion

Just an FYI that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the San Marino 2024 article about splitting out the selection process. Only the editor who wants the split and myself have commented and it's been 2 months with no other comments. Hoping to get a consensus formed soon so we can close out the proposal. Please add your comments if you have any! Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging! I've now added to the discussion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Song column before the artist one

Has this change been agreed upon anywhere? It looks bad and useless and even goes against what EBU themselves do in their own website where they list the artists first. AdamantiosK (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[L]ooks bad and useless is a personal opinion; other editors and readers may have a different opinion. There are many reasons why the EBU place the artist first in their website, that doesn't mean we should follow this blindly. One theory I can think of, which can be seen on the history by contest page is that they link to their internal pages first, and then on the song they link to a YouTube video, so obviously they're going to highlight their own pages first to retain user traffic. This is not an issue here, since all links within the tables are to internal Wikipedia pages. They also don't list songwriters or language outside of the individual pages for each participant; should we then do the same thing then if you want to follow what the EBU does? It's the Eurovision Song Contest, and in this context I think it's right that the song should come first within the tables. If you don't like how it looks just because it's different then that's on you, but not all changes need to be agreed upon beforehand, that defeat the whole purpose of being WP:BOLD! Of course if the majority of editors disagree with this then fine, we can revert it, but it shouldn't prevent us from trying things out. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware the changes are being reverted but I would still like to add to the discussion. If we were to agree that songs are more important than the artists that perform them then why aren't songwriters listed in the '[Country] at Eurovision Song Contest' pages, as they are arguably more important to the existance of that song than the performing artists? The change to prioritise song titles over artist names in these tables would create a pretence to include songwriter names in the table as well, and I do not believe that the change in column order can be done without this first.

In my opinion, column order is a banal thing to discuss over and I think that any order they are in would suffice, which is why we should go off of how they are presented on the Eurovision website rather than Wikipedia editor opinion, which by nature differs between person. Spleennn (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, songwriters are missing in those pages. Things are not just as they are presented on the Eurovision website, nor are they the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Things are what they really are, and these must be backed up by independent and reliable sources to give a true picture of them. They are not based on personal beliefs or a page managed by an advertising agency. Ferclopedio (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As song contests, I agree 100% that the song should come first in the tables, and also in the prose as it is the entry competing. Ferclopedio (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I actually disagree. The songs aren't competing they aren't concious beings, artists are competing with the songs. But obiviously the name of the contest, branding if you will is much older than the current audio-visual and even audio-visual/medial format of the contest. It shouldn't have to matter in this. It's never about just the song anymore. It never really was considering vocals matter in the scoring too and always have. "Eurovision Song, Performance and Vocal + Personality" doesn't have such a nice ring to now, does it? And if you want to get caught up on semantics we might just as well disregard Australia altogether since you know it's EUROvision. 79.163.232.222 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, artists are competing with the songs. The thing that defines the Eurovision Song Contest, and distinguishes it from other events, is that entries have to be original songs. This isn't like any talent show where it is all about the artist, if you don't have an original song you can't take part. That's why I believe putting the song first is more apt in this scenario. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this beforehand? doktorb _words^deeds 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: As I said on Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2025, yes Ferclopedio and I had a discussion about this, we both agreed it was a good idea, and we decided to test it out. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I would appreciate a proper discussion before you revert every single page, and potentially revert other edits inadvertedly where there was consensus (as you have already done on several of the pages). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert your undiscussed wholesale edits, then, and wait for consensus. You're not new here, you should know better. doktorb _words^deeds 15:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still an event where artists compete and are the main talking point. If it was strictly a "Song" contest they'd just play audio recordings or make it a small radio show which clearly isn't the case. The focus is on the artists themselves throughout the entire season. It's not a song contest primarily, it's the whole package that matters, and a song without the artist bringing it to life on stage is nothing, the song itself can't compete alone. AdamantiosK (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that assessment. Yes the artists are visible, obviously since they're the ones on stage, but there's just as much, if not more, focus on the songs in the contest. It's not a competition to find the best singer, and any conversation about how good the singers are when talking about them competing in Eurovision is almost always in relation to what song they are bringing to Eurovision, albeit yes this is alongside a host of other aspects like the staging, choreography etc. At the heart of this decision though was the idea that without the songs, Eurovision is just another talent competition; it doesn't have the same draw or appeal if it's not original songs in my opinion, hence why placing the songs first makes logical sense to me. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe putting the song first is more apt in this scenario" is a personal opinion. other editors and readers may have a different opinion. I am not sure how that differentiates Eurovision from any other song contest, in these things the songs are always meant to be original pieces so I am not exactly sure why you're singling it out. It's kind of a given due to the nature of competition that the pieces couldn't have been preestablished. It has nothing to do with the songs being more important. I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. 79.163.232.222 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to mock me that's your perogative. What I was trying to get at is that Eurovision, and all song contests, are built on original songs; not covers, not intrumental pieces, but new music. Without that, what makes it different from American Idol or The X Factor where the artist is, and always will be, the main focus? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to mock but simply to show you your points are weakly defined by your own standards preestablished in this very conversation. I am sorry if you felt offended but those are pretty much your own words. Even bringing these two shows as counter-example I can bring 4 as a counter-counter example. In this shows you brought up it's mainly about the vocals and aguably less so about the performance true, but even in formats like that for example "The Voice" has a final round with original songs. It's not really that uncommon, especially if we stick closer to formats more in line with Eurovision than various singing talent shows. 79.163.232.222 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to eurovision.tv in their official page "The Eurovision Song Contest is an internationally televised songwriting competition, organised by the European Broadcasting Union." The fact that ESC is a contest between songs is not a personal opinion, it is reality. The ESC has been a television program since its first edition, and it has never stopped being a competition between original songs, even though today the show is filled with fireworks and camera tricks. A song without the artist who brings it to life on stage is nothing, of course not, nor without the composers who composed the music and lyrics, nor without the broadcaster who selected it and who presented it to the contest, nor without an orchestra and conductor back in the day. Ferclopedio (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong. A songwriting competion would be a competition for songwriters. Eurovision is clearly not that or not that anymore. The artists performed often aren't even involved in the process of songwriting, yet it's them that is labeled the representative not the authors, it's them who receive the trophy upon claiming the victory and it's them being t he face of all of this. Eurovision might have started as a songwriting competition but has long since moved on from that. 79.163.232.222 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe what you're saying is true, you can call the EBU and ask them to rewrite the current how-it-works page in their official site to remove the "songwriting competition" part. And also tell them to rewrite the current rules when it says: "The performer, song writer(s) and Participating Broadcaster of the winning song(s) in the Final shall receive the ESC Trophy", and the parts saying "Each song which competes in the ESC...". And tell them that they are wrong, that the ESC is not what they say. Ferclopedio (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if the songs are going to be moved to the left of the artists in these tables, this would also change the order of NF tables (currently alphabetised by artist, in this case should be alphabetised by song) and also the ESC yearly templates (where songs should go ahead of artists). To be honest I think it's fine as is, I think the normal order of mental presentation puts the artist before the song (in that it is chronologically preceding, not that it is more important) but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either way as long as it's discussed openly and agreed before we start making changes Toffeenix (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing them back now. I may consider opening a discussion on this again, but the reaction has been so vitriolic that right now it's put me off even considering it. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]