Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1994

Hosting costs?

Was this the point where RTE started freaking out about Ireland constantly winning? Timrollpickering 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i removed the map because This map is fake!! Turkish part of balkan peninsula is green but must be yellow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.94.219 (talk • contribs)

Ok, fixed it. The next time, please change the pic instead of just deleting it. Thanks :-) Peter S. 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cost?

You say that this year cost half the amount of the previous year. Are you sure this is accurate? I seem to remember this one being the really expensive one that Ireland did. Apparently it took half the entire year's programming budget. I won't change anything because I'm not certain and possibly I've got the wrong year.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1994/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! I will complete this review within one week. -Riley1012 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1. Well-written

• However Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Turkey Add comma after "However"
• ...and which has catapulted the careers of its lead dancers Jean Butler and Michael Flatley. The second "which" in this sentence is unnecessary
• At the time of the contest the arena could seat around 3,200 audience members. Add comma after "contest"
• Each entry could utilise all or part of the live orchestra and could use instrumental-only backing tracks, however any backing tracks used... Add semicolon after "tracks" and a comma after "however"
• With the Point Theatre situated on the banks of the river Liffey, rivers was an integral part of the overall creative vision for the show and was a key theme of the opening and interval acts as well as the stage design. "River" should be capitalized since this is a proper noun. Then both times "was" is used should be "were" instead.
• Each participating delegation took part in two technical rehearsals in the week approach the contest... Should be "approaching"
• For the first time the spokespersons were connected to the venue... Add comma after "time"

2. Verifiable
Earwig's Copyvio check is fine- similarities shown are just song titles and artist names. All statements are sourced from reliable sources.

• Spot check, no issues: 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 20, 24, 27, 36, 40, 45, 50, 65, 80, 90, 96

3. Broad
The article is broad and focused in its coverage of the event.

4. Neutral
The article is neutral in its coverage of the event.

5. Stable
This article is stable day-to-day.

6. Illustrated
The images in the article are free and have relevant captions.

@Sims2aholic8: Sorry for the delay. -Riley1012 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Riley1012: Thanks for the review! All suggested corrections now completed. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Edyta Górniak

• ... that at the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 Poland, represented by Edyta Górniak (pictured), achieved the most successful début performance of any country at that time when it placed second? Source: "Poland's second place was the highest ever placing by a country at the time in their debut year."
  • ALT1: ... that seven countries competed in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 for the first time, the largest single expansion of participating countries since the contest's first edition? Source: "In 1994 seven countries joined the Eurovision Song Contest in what was the biggest single expansion in participants since the contest began in 1956."
  • ALT2: ... that "Riverdance" started life as a seven-minute performance during the interval of the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 before being developed into a full-length theatrical show? Source: Riverdance First Perfomance: 1994
  • ALT3: ... that Ireland's win at the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 marked the only time that a country won three consecutive contests? Source: "Ireland went on to win the 1994 Eurovision Song Contest [...] and set a new record by becoming the only country to win the contest three times in a row."
  • ALT4: ... that while Poland placed second in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 on its first participation in the event, Lithuania came last and scored nul points in the same contest with its first ever entry? Source: "Poland's debut at the Eurovision Song Contest was very successful when their representative Edyta Gorniak finished second with 166 points." [...] "Lithuania scored zero points with its first ever entry."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jason Jones-Hughes

Improved to Good Article status by Sims2aholic8 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC).

• QPQ seems done. The quotes in the nomination verify the hooks and can be found in the linked sources. It is also a timely nomination, and the article is good quality with in-line sources cited wherever required and meets the character count requirement. This nomination is good to go! Are secondary sources available for the claims by any chance?--NØ 14:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the prompt review! Some secondary sources for some of the alts can be found below: Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT1: [1]

ALT2: [2]

ALT3: [3]

ALT4: [4] [5]

Italy question

Is a reason why Italy may have skipped this event known? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally it's believed that RAI simply had no further interest in participating, mainly down to apathy among the Italian population. Bar their hosting in 1991 RAI generally put the broadcast of contests on secondary channels and several hours after the live broadcast, generally ending in the middle of the night. However there is not a lot of reliable sources by which to back this up, and it would be considered original research to assert this without sourcing. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus relegation

@Tvx1: Please refrain from reverting this paragraph further. The fact is that Cyprus was relegated from the 1994 contest, but was only allowed to participate because Italy decided not to. To not include Cyprus in this paragraph would be the misleading thing because of the established facts in this case. It's very well established later on in the paragraph that the Italy-Cyprus switch occurred, and it's also not something that is included in the lead because Cyprus did participate, but logically it's right to include the fact that Cyprus was originally relegated from a chronological perspective. We take the same approach to other years where a country was relegated but subsequently participated after a country declined to enter (see 1997 and 1999 as prime examples where Bosnia and Herzegovina and Portugal were allowed to participate after Israel, and Latvia and Hungary, respectively, declined to enter). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you firstly drop the authoritive tone in your posts and edits. Edits to this article don’t need your personal approval. Mentioning Cyprus in a sentence that states that they were unable to enter is a very much misleading and very confusing given the aforementioned similar lead sentence that doesn’t name them. Therefore it is much better to deal with the Cyprus situation in its entirety in its own paragraph, where you can explain that Cyrpus initially were not allowed to enter but added later following a withdrawal , instead of in two disconnected segments of that section of the article. Why is it so difficult for you to open yourself to constructive collaberation to improve that part of the article. Tvx1 14:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tvx1: saw this back and forth on my watchlist. This is a WP:GA, so it has already been through a detailed review of sources and accuracy. As Sims2aholic8 was the editor who brought it through that process, they're a bit more knowledgeable of the specific sources used and the intricacies of the subject matter than the average editor. Honestly, I see your edits as rather authoritative instead, as you've come here out of the blue and demanded a change and won't take no for an answer. Typically if there is a disagreement, the article remains as is and a consensus is formed before the change (if any) is made. I don't think you've made a convincing case, so I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about your version as opposed to the one that had already been reviewed and accepted by many. Of course there is always a possibility that improvements can be made, but I'm not seeing any evidence of collaboration on your part. Grk1011 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tvx1: If my edits and comments here have been misconstrued as implying a perceived ownership of this article then I apologise. As Grk1011 mentioned I was the editor to bring this article to GA, and I therefore put a lot of time and energy into this and put it through a process of review. As I said, this doesn't mean I "own" the article, just that I have gained a lot of information and context from putting the article through the GA process, and your issue did not come up during this review. However what I do take issue with is your framing of "constructive collaberation [sic]" around your edits, which feel to me in no way constructive, since all you are doing is removing Cyprus from a list of relegated countries (when they were originally) while making no corresponding alterations to the rest of the paragraph to address this loss of information. In fact, keeping your edits would cause confusion for the reader as it would lead to narrative disjointment. Right now the single paragraph covering the competing countries has a narrative involving countries relegated, then new countries, then any changes to the line-up after the "confirmed" list of countries was developed. Taking Cyprus out of the seven relegated countries would be in my opinion confusing to the reader, as there would not be the context then around why Cyprus was readmitted after Italy dropped out. This is the reason why your edits were reverted, not because of any sense of "ownership" but because I and other editors felt there would be a drop in context by permitting them to remain, and instead of working with us once it became apparent to me that dialogue and constructive collaboration were required, you continue to engage in edit warring and then attack me when I made what I felt to be quite well-reasoned arguments to retain the original wording. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)