Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re-direct

I think this page should be really removed. I have many times marked this for speedy deletion, and the mark has been always removed. When ESC 2013 is over, this is ok to create, but not yet - even as a redirection. --Olli (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a re-direct in place to Eurovision Song Contest all the way up to 2019. This re-direct was re-created by another user following a WP:CSD#G6 deletion which is clearly now contested making that criterion inappropriate to use. Since the re-direct does not meet any other speedy deletion criterion, the only avenue for deletion will be at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I don't really see a problem to be solved here; if there is concern on unregistered users creating the page prematurely then semi-protection is available. CT Cooper · talk 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Now

Now that the article has been created and it is soon less than two days until the result of the final we can just as well keep it, without a long and exhausting deletion or redirect discussion in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Location

The location could also be Gigantium in Aalborg, which have held the national contest a few times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.186.151 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Source please to verify this, otherwise we cannot include it into the article. Thank you. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes source please, in recently article the General Director of DR, translated, it said: "It is not yet known where the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 to be held, but the city will affect the price."[1] --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There are currently two locations listed under the bidding process, neither of them have a source (although Boxen have confirmed an interest, Parken have not (at least to my knowledge). It is my understanding that the host broadcaster have not even opened the bidding proces yet (as today is a public holiday in Denmark), so already having locations listed seems a bit premature.KDLarsen (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

KDLarsen has actually got a valid point here. The bidding phase sections seems to have just been thrown in for padding at this present time, as there are no sources to verify their inclusion, plus the section doesn't have a prose nor is it laid out in the format that has been used on previous articles (2011 - 2013). So perhaps that should be removed for now, until there are sources to help clarify that a bidding phase has begun. Wesley♦^Mouse 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe the bidding phase section wasn't padding after all, well not according to the news report on ESCDaily.com anyway. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The official bidding phase will start tomorrow. Herning and Copenhagen are in the race, with Aarhus backing Herning's bid. [2] Dinsdagskind (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The city of Horsens announced its candidacy as well today, the venue being a state prison [3] peterjhansen —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see the vandalism has already begun (which isn't a surprise really). I've already had to revert several edits due to vandalism, or incorrectly citing what a source is actually reporting (and I'm talking about Bosnia-Herzegovina here). The source used doesn't mention anything about Bosnia returning, or that they are even considering a return. So please do not add them to the confirmed section until there is an official announcement to say otherwise. The same goes for Romania, the source that was used didn't say anything that Romania may withdraw. All it said was there were disappointed with the voting. The vandals are normally IP's in recent years, but they are getting smarter this time around, by creating registered accounts purely so they can make a vandalism edit to a semi-protected article. Keep your eyes peeled folks, and stamp down on vandalism. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Albania

Just come from a forum that said Albania would be withdrawing. The source is from Panaroma and in Albanian,

Click show

"Identity" was the only rock song in the current edition of the European Festival, which is held in Malmo, Sweden, and could not be classified for the final dot. Despite high expectations and Adrian BLEDAR Sejkos Lulgjuraj the fact that attending a rock song be the favored in this race, they could not able to take enough votes to enter the race strong finalists, leaving Albanians disappointed, especially those living abroad, who when it comes to such competitions are very sensitive. In addition to comments by hatred of unfair blame geopolitical vote again, there were those who considered a less mainstream rock song, because already in the commercialization of music around the world can be few people who like this music. Some other fans have not liked very exaggerated performance fireworks on stage, while there were also comments along the lines that this is a festival which promotes gay, and they will be given priority. After Albania's disqualification from the festival, many have commented as a "funny scene" Eurovision scene already and it has lost meaning, and that Albania must renounce participation. While both artists have received compliments for items and special charm of Joni Peci clothing, followed by comments from countries like Germany and Turkey, which have emerged as very impersionuar by two artists, as many would like to followed "live" at their concerts. Lulgjuraj Sejko and sang the 14-s in Thursday's race, where he presented 17 songs. After the song "Identity" was declared winner of the ART, was plagiarized from a noose as Serbian songs of the 80s, detail that is mentioned negatively by Serb commentators. This loss of two artists Eurovision triumph comes after last year's unexpected Rona Nishliu the song "Suus", which arrived was ranked fifth.

I've bolded the important part, I would add it but can't be 100% sure. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Edit] Reading it again, it says 'must renounce' but is that the source talking or RTSH. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I read it too AxG, and notice the source only stipulates they should renounce. It doesn't say they have withdrawn. It is basically like the other year when British Paparazzi stated the UK must withdraw, yet the BBC never did withdraw. We need to be very careful when it comes to reading news reports, and avoid misinterpreting news reports. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

what happens to israel

considering 3 years of bad results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for a statement from IBA's intentions on Eurovision 2014 first. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

norway might choose internally next year

the popularity of the norwegian selection have gone done so much that there probably isnt any reason to hold a final. norway will participate though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic?

They have been coloured yellow on the map. Is there any confirming source? Aejsing (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

D97v (talk · contribs) has altered it, based on a source that is actually unreliable, and not only that it is a blogger website which it not favourable per WP:BLOGS. I'm going to be bold and fix the map accordingly. But this isn't the first time that D97v has made erroneous versions of ESC/JESC maps. Perhaps it is time someone had a polite word with the editor? Wesley♦Mouse 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Both Czech Republic and Slovakia (as said by manager Václav Mika) stated that they have no plans for participation 2014. --Ohnder (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ireland

I'm pretty sure you can add Ireland in Eurovision 2014 to the list because according to http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/only-hope-survives-as-rte-refuses-to-give-up-after-latest-eurovision-flop-29279418.html "Despite finishing in last place, an act will be sent to compete in the song contest next year." Lucky102 (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Isn't it a wrong source used for United Kingdom? Politikeren (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed - Someone added it in and by the looks purposely duplicated the source for San Marino, which indicates a sign of vandalism. I think this article's protection level needs to change from semi-protect to pending changes (orange padlock), so that any changes must get reviewed, with dubious/vandalism/disruptive edits being rejected. Wesley♦Mouse 11:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2013

According to the EBU, Kazakhstan won't participate in the ESC2014. See their tweet here: https://twitter.com/EBU_Eurovision/status/336876930806734848.

84.83.36.177 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We haven't said they are participating. If you notice, Kazakhstan are not listed under "Confirmed participants", but are listed under "Other countries" with a brief explanation stating that Kazakhstan are believed to be in negotiations with the EBU to apply for active membership, with the hope to join Eurovision if their application should be approved in time. And these details have been verified with a citation from a reliable source. Wesley♦Mouse 09:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Returning artists

I've been rather reluctant in removing these so soon, and giving benefit of the doubt for the time being. However, the term "it is possible"!? Like, really!? They are sounding extremely speculative at this early stage, and surely in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Unless anyone can think of a valid reason to keep them, or better still; reword it - then I think they should be removed soon. Wesley♦Mouse 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Executive supervisor

Well, it's Jon Ola Sand who is the supervisor, not Pernille. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes we know. Some idiotic IP:88.218.207.106 has been on a vandalising spree across several Eurovision and Junior Eurovision articles. I've been chasing around like a headless chicken reverting all their actions. I feel cyber-dizzy now lol. Wesley♦Mouse 18:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand. You guys are doing a great job cleaning up the mess and providing the right information! Keep up the good work! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments, much appreciated. Wesley♦Mouse 01:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sweden is not confirmed

The source used to verify that Sweden will participate in the 2014 ESC is not true. It only says that Melodifestivalen will be heald next year. I know that Melodifestivalen works as the national selection for Sweden in the ESC, but the source does not not say that Sweden will be participating next year in the ESC. So I think Sweden should be removed from the "Confirmed Countries" list. 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

EDIT I changed it myself but someone needs to remove Sweden from the map in the infoxob;I don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.95.97 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The source states that Sweden would be present. Wesley♦Mouse 13:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• From SVT's Melodifestivalen page "Hur skickar jag in ett bidrag till Melodifestivalen? Du laddar upp din låt direkt här på svt.se/melodifestivalen under ansökningsperioden. Antagningen till Melodifestivalen 2013 har stängt, men datumen för att vara med i Melodifestivalen 2014 presenteras på webbplatsen under sommaren. Which translates in English as How do I submit a contribution to the Eurovision Song Contest? You upload your song right here on svt.se / Eurovision Song Contest during the application period. Admission to the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 has been closed, but the dates to be in Melodifestivalen 2014 are presented on the site during the summer. Wesley♦Mouse 13:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate turns most occurrences of "Melodifestivalen" into "Eurovision Song Contest", so it generates confusion. Another ridiculous example is that I once wrote "Christer Björkman" and its English translation was "Linda Martin" (it's not happening anymore :D). —  Andreyyshore  T  C  17:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 

How interesting. But I did use Google.co.uk and searched for "Melodifestivalen 2014" and also "Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014" and both results produced the same link for SVT.se. It is unexplainable as to how two differently worded searches both produced the same website link; which is written entirely in Swedish. Google search (as far as I know) uses keyword searching technology - so I find it bizarre that it would bring up the same Swedish written link regardless of whether I searched in English or Swedish keywords. Wesley♦Mouse 17:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I still can't see any confirmation so it doesn't really matter. I'm from Sweden so my mothertounge is Swedish, and in that source, the 2014 ESC isn't mentioned a single time. But if that (for some stupid reason) veryfies Swedish participation, go ahead. But as I said, not a single word in the source mentions the ESC 2014. So I suggest we remove Sweden from the list once again. 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.95.97 (talk)

I would recommend that the IP watches their tone in how they type their edit summaries. Shouting is virtually never appropriate, and may be offensive to some editors. And edit warring despite what people have said and sources that have been used, is most certainly not acceptable. Wesley♦Mouse 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Okey I'm sorry, but as I said, the article does not confirm any participation for Sweden in the 2014 ESC, it only says that you can sumbit your songs to Melodifestivalen 2014. But i'm done editing, you can use a source which doesn't verify confirmation. 21:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.95.97 (talk)

I agree with the 81.226.95.97 that the sources only confirms Melodifestivalen, and not ESC. But it really doesn't matter. The ESC is a huge thing in Sweden. The only thing that could make people question if Sweden should participate would be if it were to be held in Belarus. And 2014 it will be in Denmark, so Sweden will participate. It just hasn't been written down yet at the sites linked. Boivie (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aalborg/Ålborg

I would like to know your opinions on whether we should place Aalborg at the end of the bidding phase list, as opposed to the beginning. In Danish, the digraph Aa is equivalent to the letter Å, which goes at the very end of the Danish alphabet. The two spellings are treated in the same way in alphabetically sorted lists. For example, if we make an alphabetically sorted list of all Danish cities, places starting with Aa and Å should come at the end. What's curious is that they don't follow this rule in the Danish article. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  17:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 

Just a suggestion, I say we keep it at the beginning and use the common English way of alphabetising. You never know if we put it at the end it may get constantly moved towards the top. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I second what AxG has said. We know how some people have tendencies to constantly rearrange things. That might also explain why our Danish colleagues have also done the same - perhaps they too are on AxG's wavelength and have pre-emptively done the same tactic to prevent a headache. Wesley♦Mouse 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom?

Who added the United Kingdom without a proper source? There are no links to reliable website to confirm what has been said. Wesley♦Mouse 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it seeing as there were no sources to verify the facts. Also I notice our friend D97v is still altering the map and using unreliable sources to verify their changes, such as; Tweets from unofficial sources; Fan comments from Facebook; and more recently (in the case of UK) Oikotimes which don't even mention where they got their news from, and the report from Oikotimes was posted by a fan and not one of the website's editorial team - so I'm treating the Oikotimes report as extremely dodgy. Wesley♦Mouse 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Spain confirmed ?

The information from the source used to add Spain as a confirmed participant is misleading. The original source of that ESCFlashMalta.com article (http://escflashmalta.com/index.php/music-news/international-music-news/item/2987-spain-ruth-lorenzo-asked-to-represented-nation) is this column from Express, where Ruth Lorenzo is asked about doing Eurovision and quoted to have responded "I have been asked. I guess I'm just waiting for the right time. I wouldn't say no. I'd love to do it for the UK." She doesn't say what year she has been asked and what country has asked her, whether it's Spain or the UK. Xelaxa () 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Spain should be listed either. In fact, I think unless a broadcaster explicitly states they are participating, fansites or other news agencies/tabloids shouldn't be used as valid confirmations for participation. Technically speaking, no country is really confirmed until the EBU releases their preliminary list after the application deadline. Pickette (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a confirmation!! --84.125.202.73 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Pickette, the ideology there would be unfeasible here. The issue of only accepting sourced confirmation explicitly from the national broadcaster's websites have been slammed down many times in the past. As long as a source is reliable then we are OK to show a country as confirmed; regardless of whether or not the source is a primary (national broadcaster/EBU), secondary (online newspapers and reliable ESC websites such as ESCToday), or tertiary. I think you will find it very hard to force people to only use national broadcasters for this particular scenario. Besides, every member of this project knows the list of confirmed participation is subject to change at any time; until the EBU list is publicised in December. Wesley♦Mouse 00:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be an issue. The list should be as accurate as possible and primary sources will ensure that. Other than that I think there should be a warning or some kind of text added in that section that communicates the potential for this list to be incorrect. We saw it happen last year with many of the countries who eventually ended up withdrawing. Pickette (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is an issue that has been raised every year Pickette, and one that always ends up turning nasty. I've learnt that error the last 2 years, and now I leave it well alone. Even the suggestion to add a warning text was ruled out, as apparently it is "prohibited procedure". Don't repair what isn't broken is my motto here. Wesley♦Mouse 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it seems like this is something that is broken and being ignored. It would be better to list nothing than to list potentially inaccurate information. But if that's the decision here then so be it. Pickette (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary Pickette, I have to totally disagree with you on this matter, sorry. It was mentioned two years in a row by CT Cooper (talk · contribs) regarding this matter - ironically the same argument was raised both years by Tony0106 (talk · contribs) - and even more strange that the same issue is now being raised for a third consecutive year in a row, but this time by a different user (which makes a change I suppose).. Cooper stated the following (and I quote) As for the suggestion of only using the EBU and the broadcasters for confirmation, or any other source which is close to the EBU, this is effectively saying we should only use primary sources rather than secondary sources. The main problem with this idea is that it it is not backed by policy, in fact it can be argued that contradicts it. As I said earlier, WP:SECONDARY makes clear that encyclopaedic articles are supposed to be written based on secondary sources, and while primary sources can be used, secondary sources should be in the majority. It would be wrong to write an article about a company using only primary sources from that company, and it is equally wrong to write Eurovision articles only using sources from the EBU. I agree that there are some cases in which we should be more cautious on the sources, but banning legitimate news sites because they are not Eurovision sites contradicts WP:NEWSORG, and does not make a great deal of sense, given that reliability is not measured on how close a source is to the topic. Wesley♦Mouse 02:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So the solution is that there is no solution - it's pretty much a free-for-all at the expense of accuracy. And just to clarify, I didn't bring this situation up, a different user did (Xelaxa) and I commented on it. You spoke directly to me in your comment above so I answered back. Pickette (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that Xelaxa only brought up the issue with regards to Spain. You on the otherhand, expanded it further and brought up the issue of only using EBU and/or National Broadcasters as sourced information - something which has been discussed every year since 2011. I think that an experienced administrator and well-established editor such as CT Cooper would know what he is talking about in terms of policies and what is acceptable standards for sources, especially with an issue as complexed as this one. Before this gets even more crazy as it did the last 2 years, I'd suggest to leave it be; and continue the way we have done for many years now. Wesley♦Mouse 02:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment was addressing the potential inaccuracies across all of the sources in light of the Spanish issue. I wasn't here the last two years so I don't know what has been discussed but based on the quote you gave, it's an unsatisfactory solution if it's being brought up for a third year in a row. I'm not saying that not using secondary sources is the best option but the current state of things just perpetuates inaccuracy in the article. Pickette (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a case of "an unsatisfactory solution" whatsoever. The only reason it was raised two years in a row, is because the user had a slight issue with folk and would go to any extreme to pick a cyber-fight for nothing; and refusing to drop the stick and back away gracefully. Even Cooper was starting to show signs of annoyance towards the editor because of it. I understand what Cooper means though in that which I quoted above. He is basically saying that we should be using other sources rather than primary ones such as National Broadcasters/EBU - purely for the fact that this article is about a contest that belongs to the EBU and participated by National Broadcasters; and therefore we need to be portraying information that can be found from other sources. In previous years, people would have a tendency to use section headers for "Possible Debut/Return/Withdrawn" - but the term "possible" made us sound very speculative and that goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Now we use the header "Other countries", which is for the sole purpose of detailing information about a country that has stated a debut/withdrawal/return (whether it be potential or actual), as long as there is a reliable source that can be used to verify what is being written (as is the case for Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Czech Republic etc). Wesley♦Mouse 03:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It may be a good idea Pickette, to have a glance at the project goals to give a rough idea of what is expected on these articles; and maybe have a quick read through archived discussions too. Hopefully to achieve some background knowledge of what has been said in the past. Wesley♦Mouse 03:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I think a potential solution for this would be to change the heading "Confirmed participants" to something like "Participant status" or whatever communicates that these countries are not 100% in and that they could still withdraw. Perhaps an approach like the "Other countries" heading should be used where the sources provided for such a confirmation are elaborated upon within the article until the EBU release the full list of applicants in the Winter. Honestly, I'm not bothered whether it ends up being changed or not but if the aim of this article is to provide accurate information, then this is probably something that should be addressed. Pickette (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "Participant status" is very ambiguous and can leave things wide open to interpretation and possible high increase in vandalism to the article. So on that thesis, I would strongly oppose a move to use that as a header. Like I have said before; I don't see anything wrong with the way the article is. The current method has worked well for many years; so why change it now when it is working perfectly well. Now please, can we just drop this and get back to what we're supposed to be doing - improving articles in a teamwork collaboration. I'm almost complete on my task to get the ESC2011 and OGAE articles up to GA status (ready for the GA submission). I can't be arsed with having to deal with this headache of an issue for a third consecutive year. Wesley♦Mouse 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the past discussion that you've been referring to and the issue, as I am discussing it here, was never really discussed. It actually came off as one huge fight mainly between three users (two vs one) and it was only aimed at knocking down the suggestion of using only primary sources. Using only primary sources may not be the best solution, but leaving things the way they are now is just flat out misleading. A lot of the sources on this article are just making assumptions about participation and some don't even confirm anything. For example, Spain's participation is being confirmed by an article that is misrepresenting the information they cite as their source. Others are just casual statements about how there are currently no plans to withdraw or that a certain country is likely to participate. Those are hardly guaranteed confirmations for participation. And just to make things clear, you commented on what I wrote. It's not as if I was making a big deal out of this when I wrote that 2 days ago. If you can't be arsed to deal with this, then why bother commenting in the first place? Pickette (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please Pickette, stop taking my comments out of context and re-interpreting them into something that I was not referring to. To ask me why I bothered to comment in the first place is just uncalled for to be quite frank. When I said I can't be arsed, I was meaning that with hindsight of knowing how this issue gets arguably disruptive in previous years, that I didn't wish to go through the whole ordeal for a third year in a row; especially with the knowing of how this debate will end - and that being the same ending that it has been the last 2 years - consensus of no change! However, if this wasn't such a big deal for you, then why are you continuously refusing to drop the stick?

Xelaxa opened up a question regarding Spain - any member of Wikipedia with an interest in this subject is allowed to participate in a peaceful debate - which is what I did here, as did yourself. You chose to expand Xelaxa's query by stating that we MUST only use primary sources. As this issue had been brought up year in, year out, I chose to answer your enquiry by explaining why it would not be feasible to operate your suggestion - purely because the issue had been answered so many times, with the same valid policy-based reason as to why primary sources such as EBU/National Broadcasters are not always used for the sake of confirmed countries.

Now I cannot comment as to whether you intentionally refused to accept what was said in the past, or if you just wanted to enquire further with the aim to seek a more reasonable explanation. But whatever the case, I assumed the good faith in you, as I was fully aware that you were not a member of Wikipedia or Project Eurovision, and in turn was trying to be helpful by providing awareness of the previous debates in connection to this issue. I also provided a quotation on what was said and in the past by a long-standing editor as to WHY the current method is in place. And I also explained that only one editor constantly raised the issue 2 years in a row - only to be told the same thing each time.

Leaving things as they are is not "flat out misleading" whatsoever. We are NOT a newsdesk reporting things to the general Eurovision fan, we are an encyclopaedia that needs to provide information on a broader scope and written in a neutral tone, not just for the avid Eurovision fan, but also aimed at the readers who are learning about Eurovision for the first time. Nothing is misleading at all, as everything we include is cited using reliable sources. If we just wrote context without providing sources, then it could be argued that we're being misleading. Everything in this article and previous articles is abiding to the three core policies (which are clearly shown at the top of this talk page - no original research; neutral point of view; and verifiability) - they are all part of the five core pillars of Wikipedia, and something that you'll find every Wikipedian needs to be sticking to when it comes to article writing. Those pillars would be very hard for anyone, even yourself, to attempt to change. Wesley♦Mouse 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed - it has been brought-up more than once and as I remember by more than one user. The policy position hasn't changed - restricting only to primary sources is against policy and doesn't make a lot of sense. The default criteria for using a source is if it is reliable, not if it is primary, secondary, or tertiary. If sources are persistently inaccurate, they should be treated as unreliable and not used at all. The current system is not perfect and I'm open minded to suggestions on improvements but I haven't yet heard any that I believe would be workable, would actually make things better than they are now, and would be compatible with policies and guidelines. That said, I have said in the past that we have been a little to liberal when assessing the reliability of sources, and that is still my view. CT Cooper · talk 21:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I raise my hand up on one issue here, that I only just recalled. At this early stage of any contest the project have normally used the term "Participating countries" rather than "Confirmed participants", and have also included a short prose "As of [date], the following countries have confirmed participation:". I propose that we continue with that style but expand the short prose so that it reads "As of [date], the following countries have confirmed participation, although the list is subject to change at any given time; pending the publication of the participation list which is produced late-2013 by the European Broadcasting Union:". Any objections to this? Wesley♦Mouse 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was suggesting earlier, so it's not against policy? The only other thing I'd like to add is that I already conceded that using only primary sources was probably not the best option and I didn't know that it was against policy before I suggested it so I don't know why that was kept in focus and why another user was recruited to back that up. Pickette (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll find that CT Cooper is an administrator, and long-standing member of Project Eurovision. He is just as entitled as is Wikipedian to participate in this open discussion. So I thin the latter part of your comment is a bit over-irrational to say the least. Anyway, I have asked for opinions on the proposed suggestion, just waiting now to see if we reach a consensus on it before it gets implemented. Wesley♦Mouse 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that comment is ridiculous because I never said that he wasn't allowed to participate. My comment was referring to the constant focus on the primary source suggestion when I was just trying to come up with a better way to deal with the "confirmed countries" on this page. Anyway, this was a lot more repressive than I thought it would be but I can't say I'm surprised. Pickette (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies in advance if I sound harsh here Pickette, but read what you said in your last comment about "conceding"; as it came across as very contradictory against your other comments throughout this thread. You stated that you conceded that using only primary sources was probably not the best option. But you only said that right after CT Cooper had emphasised the rationale that I had previous stated not once, but 5 times to you - despite the fact that every time I tried to explain the situation, you insistently slammed my words back in my face; as if they were not being heard. And not only that, you then go on to cast an allegation that CT Cooper was recruited to back things up. That my friend, is a very serious allegation to make towards a fellow Wikipedian. To which I tried explain to you that any editor is permitted to engage in open discussion, and thus attempting to quash your allegation.

I'm quite disturbed as to why you are feeling so negatively towards me as an editor. OK I say things rather bluntly; but that is my nature and something that has always been the case. Wouldn't you rather have someone speak the God's honest truth about something, than have them put on a false smile and lie about what they think? I call a spade, a spade. I think people respect the fact that I speak my views honestly and openly, rather than wrap them up in pink ribbon and make my words look sweet and childlike. To be fair, I'm not as bad as you might be thinking about me Pickette. There are a lot worse people out there, not just in Wikipedia-land, but in the real world who will be more brutal and vicious, than how I am being - and believe me I'm not brutal or vicious - just speak with honesty and feeling. I'm one who would go that extra mile to defend my fellow Wikipedian's corner in their hour of need, as I believe in team spirit and watching each other's backs. You might not know this, but Project Eurovision is often seen as a piss-take by other Wikipedian's; because they think that we do not take editing duties seriously. Over the last two years, I have been doing my utmost best to turn that prospective around, and show to the greater Wikipedia Community that we are serious at what we do. That we are dedicated to creating Eurovision-related articles to a high Wikipedia standard, and all within the policies and guidelines set out by the Wikipedia Community. So please, start afresh; take some time to get to know me; and you'll find that I'm not that bad as you may have thought me to be. Wesley♦Mouse 02:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you reread this discussion before you lay all these criticisms on me. Mainly this part:

My comment was addressing the potential inaccuracies across all of the sources in light of the Spanish issue. I wasn't here the last two years so I don't know what has been discussed but based on the quote you gave, it's an unsatisfactory solution if it's being brought up for a third year in a row. I'm not saying that not using secondary sources is the best option but the current state of things just perpetuates inaccuracy in the article. Pickette (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And you went on the other user’s talk page and asked them to comment here so I fail to see error in what I said. And my issue wasn’t that you asked them to come here, but that you asked them to come and back you up on something which I already gave up on and moved forward from. It's not like I was trying to revolutionize Wikipedia. And I did make other suggestions but somehow this was all bogged down about proving me wrong about something I pretty much admitted I was wrong about or that I had a lack of knowledge about. As for the other comments, this was already discussed on my talk page. Pickette (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

LMFAO!!! Big time!!! I had a week that I didn't log onto Wikipedia and what I see is that HRH the King Wesley♦Mouse just won't let any other user to propose or discuss a change at ANYTHING concerning the Eurovision articles. Pickette, you really wasted your time here, you will never win against this one. The issue it's been raised for the third year in a row (and I didn't participate at all this time because I am no longer part of the Eurovision Project thanks to him) but he won't even try to discuss a change. And YES I only did this comment to DISTURB. Cheers! Tony0106 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So is the proposed text going to be added to the article? No one has opposed it. Pickette (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

New participation rule changes for 2014

Eurovoix.com have reported a bit of news regarding rule changes for participation (announced by the EBU). According to the website the EBU have said "...a country no longer has to have broadcast the previous years final for them to take part in the next Eurovision Song Contest." Apparently this rule has been in around for many years and the removal of it is allegedly due to Turkey not showing this years final. Eurovoix continue in their article to say "The rule change opens up the possibility of the following countries taking part next year - Andorra; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Monaco; Poland; Slovakia; and Turkey". Should we make note of this in the article, or perhaps included into Rules of the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 20:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither Italy nor Austria broadcasted the 2010 Contest and participated in 2011.Xelaxa (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

what that means is that the rule was essentially dead but that message makes the rule officially dead.84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The rule was officially dead for some years already, the EBU is responding to rumours that Turkey is automatically disqualified from the 2014 Contest due not not broadcasting the 2013 final (http://escxtra.com/2013/05/participation-rules-lightened/). It's a clarification that the rule no longer applies, because it hasn´t for some years. Some fansites have misinterpreted this as if they were changing the rule for the 2014 Contest.Xelaxa (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Copenhagen as host city

It looks like Parken is not the only possibility if the contest is to be held in Copenhagen. The Danish Eurovision-Facebook profile has suggested two other venues, the Ballerup Super Arena (hosted DMGP 2011) and Forum (hosted the Congratulations show in 2005)(https://www.facebook.com/questions/507483279287892/). Moreover it looks like the contest will coincide with some local football matches which normally take place at Parken. Thus it is uncertain whether Parken will be able to host the contest (http://www.dbu.dk/turneringer_og_resultater/resultatsoegning/programComplete.aspx?poolid=169136). Aejsing (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Forum Arena was also the venue for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003. Which if it does become the Forum, then it will be the second venue to have hosted both ESC and JESC, after Palace of Sports which hosted ESC 2005 and JESC 2009. Just thought I'd throw in a bit of trivia for everyone. It is nice to learn something new on a daily basis. Wesley♦Mouse 23:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Malmö... again?

Please can we stop adding Malmö as part of the bidding phase for Eurovision 2014. Both the host broadcaster and the EBU have explicitly stated on Eurovision.tv that Malmö is pure fan speculation, and that the contest WILL be held in Denmark only and not in Malmö, Sweden! Wesley♦Mouse 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

there shouldnt be a link to 2015 until there is an article

my suggestion is that it is either a red link or no link at all. that will prevent people from checking it out until there is an article.84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a link, and it redirects to a different page, as it is too early to have an article for Eurovision 2015 - especially when 1) the article would be subject to vandalism; and 2) the article would hold no content whatsoever as we won't know who the host is until the end of the 2014 Contest. This is normal procedure for all future Eurovision articles, and they are protected from the grasps of vandals too. Wesley♦Mouse 13:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

that is why there shouldnt be a link there until there is an article to link to.84.208.59.120 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not impossible, a few coding on the template, plus the existing redirect would have to be deleted, and the link would not appear until the article is created. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RTVSLO recovering well from financial cuts

RTV SLO is reported to have overcome premature worries of not being able to afford participation in Malmo. http://escnorge.net/index.php/danmark-2014/siste-nytt/5184-slovenia-reddet-for-2014-deltakelse

The EBU is happy with the stabilization of the Slovenian broadcaster, and wishes to ensure it remains a strong and independent broadcaster.

RTV SLO still got fairly good ratings, despite not being in the final of 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.125.69 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Participation map

Please could everyone when removing/adding countries from the confirmed countries section, remember to keep the participation map updated too. If you don't know how, then ask someone to do it for you - communication is vital! Wesley♦Mouse 00:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Greek broadcaster closing down, could affect Greek participation?

The Greek government is closing down ERT, but they're still unsure whether they will still be able to offer their services. It also could mean a possible withdrawal from Greece, as no alternative Greek broadcaster is an EBU member.

Source - http://escxtra.com/2013/06/ert-to-be-closed-reopening-with-fewer-staff/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.125.69 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The headline of that article is very two-sides. It reads: ERT will close down but then reopen with fewer staff. So that is basically saying its job-cuts within the company - a bit like forced redundancies for employees of ERT? Am I reading the headline right? Wesley♦Mouse 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the BBC News article, "All employees, numbering at least 2,500, will be suspended until the company reopens "as soon as possible." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22861577). Xelaxa (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ERT is shut down as of 11th June 2013,but I think is worth to be mentioned that the Official Greek government announcement stated that ERT will be down and within 3 months there will be a smaller Greek Public Broadcaster,which will probably request to join EBU and will be accepted before ESC 2014 as a Government-Owned channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggelakiss00 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Until the EBU have made an announcement regarding membership, then we shouldn't really remove ERT off the active members list. Otherwise we would be in breach of WP:NOR. Patience is a virtue! Wesley♦Mouse 02:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Update - The EBU are urging the Greek government to reverse their decision as reported on EBU.ch. I think we need to be responsible and watch closely as events unfold before acting irrational and removing Greece off ANY list, until we know 110% certain that the EBU have removed ERT off their active members list. Try and avoid media propaganda by prematurely guessing what could or could not be happening. Wesley♦Mouse 02:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Greece will not be in denmark because the new national tv is transmitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamantios 171101 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Will Russia be leaving?

I thought that Russia should be added to the "Other Countries" section seeing as their participation in future Eurovision events could be in jeopardy due to new Russian laws. On 12th June the Russian government passed a new law (by a vote of 436 to 0) banning all homosexual propaganda from all Russian TV stations, music, politics and news papers meaning there is a possibility the Eurovision Song Contest COULD be banned from being aired in Russia. news report User talk:Karlwhen 15:21, 15 June 2013 (GMT).

I very much doubt that Russia would ban the Eurovision SONG Contest. Clue is in the title! It's music! If we add it to the other countries section, would we not be reading in-between the lines and speculating. Besides, the BBC source doesn't mention anything about pulling out of Eurovision, so we would be publishing original research. Wesley♦Mouse 15:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic and Slovakia

Are these source reliable?

• Czech Republic: http://escxtra.com/2013/05/no-participation-in-2014/
• Slovakia: http://oikotimes.com/2013/05/28/slovakia-czech-rep-unlikely-to-return/

Gce (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know but they themselves are sourcing from Facebook and a forum, both of which are a big no-no for sources. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also (for Facebook) if the news is taken from the official account of Czech Television? --Gce (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Aalborg out

Resolved

Aalborg has pulled out due to lack of hotel capacity: http://www.dr.dk/melodigrandprix/Artikler/2014/141006.htm Aejsing (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

B&W Section Hall is selected as host: http://www.dr.dk/melodigrandprix/Nyheder/2013/09/koebenhavn.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.46.134 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us. However the article had been updated with the announcement an 90 minutes prior to you post above. Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Third time!

It is official. Valentina Monetta will represent San marino for the third time. Source: the official website of SMTV San Marino.

Is it already time to create tables? :) --SimoneMLK (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia

Macedonia will maybe choose their entrant tonight. [4] Isn't this a confirmation? --Ahmetyal (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The reporter at ESCXtra seems to be unsure whether it is confirmation or not. Perhaps wait and see what develops from this? If an announcement is made, then we can certainly update the article. Wesley♦Mouse 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It ended up being a news rumour about one of the backing singers from ESC 2013 being interested in representing Macedonia. Pickette (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Austria

Would this qualify as an Austrian confirmation, since they are saying that they will definitely use an internal selection: link Jjj1238 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Wesley ☮ Mouse 00:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A Portuguese return in Denmark?

Hello everyone!

I found these two articles today about Portugal in the Eurovision. The articles are saying that Portugal's national broadcaster RTP are returning to the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 in Denmark. Can anyone say if this is really true or not?

Janelaesc.com blogsite

Thanks for a quick replay, Ovidarch (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The first source from janelaesc could be legitimate. I'm about 80% certain that we've used them in the past, and they are on a list of websites that were approved by the EBU 2012 as being trustworthy (see project discussion here). The second website however is a blogsite, and are not considered to be reliable enough per WP:BLOGS. Wesley ☮ Mouse 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Wesley ☮ Mouse! Shall I add Portugal then in the table of confirmed countries for ESC 2014 or wait with it until we have an confirmation from, ESC today for example? Personally, I think it's save to say that we can put Portugal in as a returning country as it says they are already preparing for Denmark. :-) Ovidarch (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say allow a little bit more time. If anything other sources would probably report on this by the weekend, then we'll know for definite either way. Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Im with Wesley on this, wait until true confirmation.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Other countries

Might I suggest adding all the countries that has "somewhat confirmed" their participation in ESC 2013 to the "Other countries" section. So that we do not need to hace the endless " I have read on this "semi reliable" site that Belarus will participate" kind of discussions.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I already suggested that at #Latvia, Italy and others, but nobody has responded . Just noticed Jjj1238 (talk · contribs) replied. . Wesley ☮ Mouse 21:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Belarus

The source only says that Belarus is most likely to participate, and it also says that there haven't been an official confirmation. Should it be removed?
Politikeren (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tricky one. ESCToday (who are reliable) state in their report that they contacted the national broadcaster who said "they will most likely participate" yet in the same report ESCToday go on to say that "the national broadcaster have not confirmed anything". A bit of a contradictory report from a reliable source, is it not? Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I say rather wait than being wrong and adding Belarus to the list at this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If the source is right Belarus will most likely confirm within the next few days so yes I agree with just waiting. Jjj1238 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Latvia, Italy and others

Latvia most likely participate in ESC 2014, however it isn't official confirmation to join to competion in Denmark (http://www.esctoday.com/67193/latvia-ltv-will-most-likely-participate-in-eurovision-2014/)! Italy will be next year in ESC. (http://www.eurowizja.org/v10_news.php?id=7914 in Polish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.89.144 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As was the decision for Belarus (see above), it is best to await official "definite" confirmation rather than basing our evidence on a "most likely" decision. Although I don't see any harm in adding Belarus, Italy, and Latvia to the "other countries" section for now stating that they are most likely to participate, but with an official definite confirmation yet to be determined. Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think adding them to 'Other Countries' would be fine. Jjj1238 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria(http://www.esctoday.com/67199/bulgaria-bnt-has-not-decided-on-eurovision-2014-yet/) and Montenegro (http://www.esctoday.com/67234/montenegro-rtcg-most-likely-to-participate-in-eurovision-2014/) should be in 'Other Countries' too.

Ukraine

Ukraine most likely to participate in Eurovision 2014. (http://www.esctoday.com/67285/ukraine-ntu-most-likely-to-participate-in-eurovision-2014/). Where is in main page section with countries which are intresting to take part in forthcoming event in Denmark ("Other countries" section with Latvia, Ukraine, Montenegro, Belarus)? Bulgaria has not comfirmed yet so it should be in 'Other countries' section too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.181.35 (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria have confirmed, read the sources for them carefully. As for the other countries mentioned, please refer to the ongoing discussion above. Thanks! Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the most recent article on ESCtoday, it sais that "BNT has told esctoday.com that they have not yet decided if Bulgaria will compete at the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest in Denmark." Later in the article: "Incumbent BNT Director-General Vyara Ankova said that she wanted Bulgaria to continue taking part in the competition". And at the end: "CEM will announce their choice no later than July 26.". I see no clear answer here. Aejsing (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed that part, so sorry! If that is correct then Bulgaria should also be added to "other countries" section. But if they state 26 July, then that is tomorrow. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria has two sources both confirming their entry, neither of them are from ESCtoday. Jjj1238 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotland

I know this might sound silly, but should we mention in the article that the 2014 Eurovision might be the last time Scotland participates as part of the UK in the contest "if they vote for independence in their September 2014 indepence election?. As a fun fact if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As a British citizen, I'm inclined to say no on this matter. Primarily because using the term "might" would be potential speculation on the Scottish independence referendum, 2014, and the outcome of that will be unknown until 18 September 2014 (4 months after the contest). If the referendum is a yes for Scottish independence then sure we would be able to note this article at that point in time. But currently, it's a no from me I'm afraid. Wesley ☮ Mouse 03:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, 2014 wouldn't be the final year in the event that the referendum vote was for independence. The referendum takes place in 2014, but the planned date for full independence should the vote be a "yes" majority, is scheduled for 2016 - thus would make 2015 the "might be the last time" participation. Wesley ☮ Mouse 03:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Good to know Wesley. Yes, then this matter won't be an issue if ever until the 2015 Eurovision article. I just came to think that if Scotland votes "Yes" then how will they do with the Eurovision. Could be interesting to see. However I believe atleast right now that this referendum will end with a "No". --BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Luxembourg will not in Denmark! (http://www.esctoday.com/67236/luxembourg-rtl-will-not-return-to-eurovision-in-2014/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.64.91 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming from Oikotimes a ighly unreliable site we have to wait and see.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, we already have Luxembourg showing as not returning, with a source from ESCtoday dated April 2013. The IP is 3 months behind the times lol. Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to everyone wanting to add "countries confirmation"

I have seen alot of "this source says this and that country is likely to enter Eurovision 2014" threads being made recently. Might I suggest that you ALL just read the threads already made and you will see that we DO NOT add countries without proper confirmation from reliable sources. It will save us all alot of time and patience. Might I suggest that all of us that are established editors simply ignores these kinds of new threads as those users who makes them do not take the time to read similar threads. Then we do not have to take time to respond or read theirs either. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria had two sources confirming it's entry, just because one website (ESCtoday) said that a confirmation wasn't actually confirmed doesn't mean that it wasn't, it's just one website. The two sources previously being used were reliable and I was wondering why it was taken off from the confirmed participants. Jjj1238 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Even ESCtoday lists it as a participant: link Jjj1238 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom

EurovisionIreland.net have published a report today which is showing a recording of The Graham Norton Show post-Eurovision 2013. Approximately 34 minutes into the show, Graham Norton tells the audience that between now and February 2014, he is going to ask every musical act if they would consider representing the UK next year in Denmark. Graham asked Katy B if she would consider it. Is this a very strong indication that the UK are present next year? Wesley♦Mouse 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt this could be a one off for comedic values, but Graham ultimately is just the commentator. I'd say wait. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree: I don't think that some interviews are a secure source for the participation of a country. --Gce (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a confirmation of participation. It would just be making assumptions without anything concrete. Pickette (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Most likely it is comedy value AxG, was an interesting find nevertheless. Although the link may be good for Katy B and Les Humphries Singers articles on here, as she did confirm her dad participated for Germany in 1976, and thus shows a relation between the two artists in respect of biographical context - would that be better AxG and Gce?. Personally I think the UK should sign up Sarah Dawn Finer or Jedward lol. Wesley♦Mouse 15:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that her father did compete for Germany, it's worth a mention in the Katy B article, although not in Les Humphries Singers article which deals with the whole group. {{Cite episode}} would need to be used. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG, how spooky is this? It was only a couple of weeks ago that I said (above) that the UK should sign up Sarah Dawn Finer. Am I now a psychic? faints with shock Wesley ☮ Mouse 18:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the latest BBC gimmick to do with Eurovision (for those who don't know, I moaned directly to the BBC about it not taking it seriously enough), but someone has added the United Kingdom in this revision with the source being the classic 'we'll see you next year'. A few years ago we had a discussion about that line (which gets rehashed every year). Some years we do use it, some years we do not. I thought we agreed not to...? Spa-Franks (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall the previous discussion that you speak of Spa-Franks. Any chance you can provide link to it? Would be interesting to see what the outcome of that was, so that we can make a final decision here. Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion resulted in us not using it in 2012. We eventually used this as confirmation. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that previous discussion it seems very 50/50. Only one editor said no, whilst another editor said it could be used. Then there was yourself and an IP who were still seeking a definitive yes/no clarification. As only 2 editors responded, 1 yes and 1 no; then we are still none the wiser. This needs more discussion to reach a definitive yes or no answer. Although looking on previous history, plus the discussion above, it would be highly likely that the UK will be present. A compromise would be to mention the UK in the "other countries section", seeing as we have sources which state the UK will "most probably be present". Ironically though, it was Doktorbuk who said no in the previous discussion, and yet it is the very same editor who used a similarly worded source for this 2014 article. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Moldova

Moldova "will most likely participate" in ESC 2014. [5] Ahmetyal (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see they have been added to the participation list now. But as long as it is only 'most likely', I suppose it doesn't count as a confirmation, or what? Aejsing (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Along with Montenegro, Ukraine, and Belarus who said "they are most likely competing," we agreed that we'd wait for an official conformation. There were talks about putting there in the 'Other Countries' section but I don't know if that is happening or not. But for now we're going to have to remove Moldova just because we had to move Montenegro, Belarus, and Ukraine previously. Jjj1238 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding them into the 'Other countries' section, as there are reliable sources providing news on those respective countries. But to add them to the confirmed section when they are not would be a little dodgy. And then there is the factor that the official participation list won't be known until December anyway, so even countries that have confirmed/withdrawn/undecided are entitled to change their minds at any given time between now and then. 'Other countries' would be the idealogical place to store uncertain countries as long as we have reliable sources stating why we've add them under that section heading. Wesley ☮ Mouse 22:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely for adding them to the 'Other Countries' section, and I was wondering if we actually are going to do that since I don't see any negative points in adding them there either. Jjj1238 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one would strongly support such a move. Documenting countries who have said they are "likely" but have yet to make an "official decision" may as well be done so under the "other countries" section as long as they are cited with reliable sources. This seems to have been done since 2011 and has worked well so far and has drastically reduced the chances of vandalism edit too. Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the move as well, I don't understand why anyone would oppose it, and it definitely would decrease vandalism. Jjj1238 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Formally incorrect

In the bidding phase section it still says "So far five cities have been considered as host city of the contest, including Herning and Copenhagen, which are the favourites to host." That should be changed to "Until deadline day five cities had bid as host city of the contest, including Herning and Copenhagen, both being considered as frontrunners by media." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.85.45 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sergej Cetkovic representing Montenegro in 2014?

Hello everybody!

I found this link on the Internet today from a big Montenegrin news website, which states that Sergej Cetkovic will represent the country (Montenegro) in Denmark 2014. Is this source reliable enough to add Montenegro to the other confirmed countries and colour the country purple on the map?

Here is the link:

http://www.cdm.me/zabava/muzika-film-i-tv/sergej-cetkovic-predstavlja-crnu-goru-na-eurosongu-u-kopenhagenu

P.S I think that the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia already confirmed Montenegro as a participant in Denmark next year. :-)

Thanks for a quick reply. Ovidarch (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious source for Macedonia

I would like to seek a second opinion on the reliability of the source being used for Macedonia. I for one have never come across the website before, and as most will know I highly welcome new website sources as long as they have been checked for reliability. This one however looks very dubious. Firstly because since when has websites been allowed to give away for free MP3 links to songs? Isn't that in violation of copyrights and against global law? The website is looking highly dodgy, and I smell a rat. Wesley ☮ Mouse 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Another source reporting the news: http://escxtra.com/2013/08/tijana-dapcevic-to-represent-macedonia/ Xelaxa (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's the video of the announcement from MRT's news program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5oMpFPQUMs Pickette (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Xelaxa for checking that up. I'm sure everyone appreciates a bit of caution when it comes to new websites being used. Especially a website that is clearing breaking laws by providing free MP3 download links. I'd personally prefer if we used one of the other websites and avoided any that are breaking copyright laws. Besides, the ESCXtra one is written in English, which is preferable anyway for sources being used on English Wikipedia. Per WP:NONENG foreign language sources should only be used when there are no English ones available, and then switch to an English source once one does become available. I'm not really interested in the Youtube link, thank you! Wesley ☮ Mouse 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The website I added is a Macedonian music site that promotes their music and occasionally posts mp3s with the permission of artists, there is no law breaking just FYI. Add the English source if it's better for the article. Pickette (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

I never even checked to see who added it, I was just querying its reliability status. And forgive me if |I'm wrong here, but aren't you violating a mutual interaction ban Pickette by replying to a thread which I created? Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I was just relaying info about a source that was in doubt. And as far as I'm concerned there is no interaction ban after what you did a month ago but I'd rather not get into that. Pickette (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Although what was done a month ago, you literally jumped down my throat and told me to leave you alone, which I did. I find it rather unfair that you stamp down and attack me if I comment on any of your threads and you tell me to cease commenting on them. Yet it is perfectly OK for you to comment on any of my threads? Seems to me as if you prefer to change the rules to suit yourself. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC) It's funny you reference the interaction ban now when you haven't observed the interaction ban at all since it was created and any time I would mention it you would say the interaction ban is an informal agreement and one you don't have to abide by. Anyway I'm not going to get into another fight over this. Pickette (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The comments that were off-topic and overly heated have been placed in a collapsed box, in accordance with WP:TPG as well as to WP:AGF. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision Island

Thread moved to Talk:B&W Hallerne#Eurovision Island.

According to the official sources, host broadcaster DR have stated that the surrounding area of B&W Hallerne will be transformed into an Eurovision Island. One edition has mentioned creating a new article for B&W Hallerne, as the current wikilink directs to the company as a whole (Burmeister & Wain) and not the venue building itself. I was wondering if it would be more appropriate to create the article Eurovision Island which will then be able to provide details on the entire complex including press centre etc, and not just the contest venue. Any objections or better proposals? Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the venue area will be renamed "Eurovision Island" for the entirety of the contest. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Poland in Eurovision Song Contest

Poland most likely to return to the competion, but desicion will be in this autumn. (http://www.eurowizja.org/v10_news.php?id=8096, in Polish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.59.255 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We know, it has been mentioned on the article for weeks now. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)