Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012 at the Reference desk.

Eurovision High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Possible debuts

Italy shuold be here. --84.125.223.10 (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a reliable source, then no it should not. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a few articles on the internet that show the EBU negotiated with Italy to debut and Spain to return. However, both nations didn't have enough time to organise a national selection event, and therefore missed the deadline. But they both stated they would work on participating in 2012. Like I mentioned below for San Marino, I see no harm in including these 2 nations under headings of "possibles", similar to the way we do on the main Eurovision 2012 article - as long as an appropriate briefing is included. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg - In a Meeting in Geneva Luxembourg officials plan on entering the contest to please the Luxembourgian children.

Montnegro - RTCG announced that with their confirmation for Eurovision 2012 in Baku they're planning on making a first ever Junior Eurovision Début. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.153.217 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible returns

Spain should be here. --84.125.223.10 (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a reliable source, then no it should not. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://esckaz.com/jesc/2011/index2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.222.80 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source claims nowhere Spain's (even possible) return. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) people are discussing norwegian return so perhaps norway returns.[reply]

Possible debut

San Marino could debut next year. --84.125.223.10 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC) http://escdaily.com/articles/23872[reply]

Speculations are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 13:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the article provided by the link, it does state that San Marino are hoping to take part in the 2012 edition. So I see no reason as to why they cannot be included under a heading "possible debut", as long as an appropriate but brief write-up is included to explain this. If we're allowed to include "possibles" in the main Eurovision Song Contest articles, then the same procedure should theoretically be adapted to the Junior version. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg - In a Meeting in Geneva Luxembourg officials plan on entering the contest to please the Luxembourgian children.

Montnegro - RTCG announced that with their confirmation for Eurovision 2012 in Baku they're planning on making a first ever Junior Eurovision Début. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.153.217 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable source citing these? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are none Kosmo. Whoever is stating these is fabricating information. I have looked at all the sources (ESCToday and ESCDaily) about Montenegro, and not one of them mention anything about JESC. Also I'm sure that read somewhere that Luxembourg's broadcaster withdrew from the EBU - so it would be impossible for them to join JESC, unless they renewed their EBU license agreement. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thought so... Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 13:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova

The source for Moldova's possible withdrawal is Andy's blog at ESCkaz. According to WP:NEWSBLOG (which is the only reason why this blog post is considered acceptable as a source), "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, attribute the statement to the writer." and it is clearly an opinion piece ("[...] it looks likely to me that Moldova may withdraw [...]")

Have that in mind when editing the paragraph about Moldova, until at least we find a more reliable source. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 08:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

The only verifiable things about Spain is that they (together with Bulgaria, Albania and Turkey) did not reveal plans for participation as of 15 July 2011 and that they (together with Italy) "were unable to confirm their participation due to shortage of time". However, and unlike other countries we are listing as possible debutants and returners, they did not announce their interest in returning, which I think it should be an essential requirement for a country to be listed there... Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain did announce their interest in returning, claimed lack of time for this year, so that next year may return. --84.125.222.80 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://esckaz.com/jesc/2011/index2.htm

Nowhere says that they announced their interest in returning, nowhere says that next year they may return. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few pieces in the above linked article regarding Spain (and several other nations). But I had to scroll right down towards the end of a very long page, the pieces of news where that well hidden, that even Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot would have struggled to find it immediately. Approximately 2/3rds of the way down - dated 15 July and 06 July. There are mentions of Spain returning, as well as Albania, Turkey, Italy, San Marino debuts. Also talks about Iceland making a debut, and Germany was going to join in 2011, but couldn't organise a national selection show in time. The EBU then left the door open for Germany to organise something, but German broadcasters refused in the end and withdrew plans to participate in 2011. Who knows what will happen in 2012? The EBU are very optimistic though, from what is being published on several reliable websites. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have heard they are aiming for 16 countries next year. Quite optimistic indeed. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 20:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had read something similar on Belgovision website. Tried to post the link on here a few hours ago, but for some reason it wouldn't allow the link to be posted. Some wikipedia error flashed up about potential threatening site. So I gave up attempting to post the link after that. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia

Why is Armenia coloured? I can't find anything on the website given with the map... it's about the JESC of 2011, not 2012! Thanks, Dqfn13 (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for noticing. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A collegue on nl.wiki helped me, he/she pointed out where the source is. Just added Armenia to the list. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a highly questionable source, as depicted in this discussion at Commons. Reverted. – Kosm1 fent 11:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English may not be my native language, but still I was questioning this source myself. Lets hope there will be a good source about participating soon. Dqfn13 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the map back removing Armenia as being coloured. A user called DaMaFer keeps re-adding Armenia as confirmed, and I have told him to stop doing it, as the source doesn't say anything about Armenia confirming. All it says is that the contest itself looks forward to another colourful edition in 2012. However, he has argued until he's blue in the face saying that the article is an official Armenian Eurovision page, and that when they use "we", they are referring to Armenia. He has since created a separate map now, and added Armenia to it, and also started to add his own map creation to other language versions of JESC2012. I personally feel like removing his map creation on the grounds that he is being disruptive editing with maps. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already nominated his map for deletion as a duplicate. – Kosm1 fent 07:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final to be held on December 14?

According to the national selection rules for both Netherlands and Belgium, they state that "applicants must be aged between 10 to 15 years (by December 14)". Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the date of the contest normally held on the "date" that the applicants must be between the specific age - according to EBU rules? If so, then are we safe to add the date now? I find it strange that the 2 confirmed nations (so far) have both stated in their selection rules the same "date". Wesley Mouse (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Sources must directly support the material they are linked to per WP:V. That phrase doesn't say clearly that the international final will be held on 14 December. – Kosm1 fent 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong; I agree with you that it seems the final may be held on 14 December - however, we cannot use that unless we find a reliable source explicitly announcing the date. Any other synthesis is considered original research (look at WP:SYN) – Kosm1 fent 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of WP:V, original research, and WP:SYN. That was why I thought I'd best double-check and see what the opinions were of other editors first. The general rules from all previous years have always stated that a participant must be between a specific age range on or before a specified date - that date being of the contest itself. The official pages belonging to Belgium and Netherlands have quoted in their preselection rules this date being December 14, 2012. So there have been no original research done here, as the details where from official sources, which is within the WP:V perspective. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SYN:

A: "applicants must be aged between 10 to 15 years (by December 14)" (Dutch and Belgian pre-selection rules)

B: a participant must be between a specific age range on or before a specified date - that date being of the contest itself (JESC rules)

C: Thus, the date of the contest is 14 December 2012.

This argument is valid only if it's mentioned by a reliable source. If not, it's considered original research. I'd like to see some links mentioning C if you are to add the date in the article.

Add: Also, WP:V requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. (my bold) Are there any? – Kosm1 fent 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this sounds bold Kosmo, but I think you may be taking what I'm trying to point out, out of context by using policy wikilinks. I know all about original research, and fully aware that it isn't allowed on any article. I would never use original research whatsoever, and only raise in discussion any material that I stumble across on the Internet, and check on overall consensus with other editors first, to see what action we should take as a project team. Full cooperation is something that thrive upon, and feel slightly intimidated when someone is constantly throwing wikilinks in my face, when I am fully aware of them to begin with. If there was something I wasn't too sure of, then I'd ask for a policy reference to be forwarded to myself, so that I can read up on it.
The only reason I started this thread is because details published regarding pre-selection rules on AVRO (Netherlands website); Ketnet (Belgium website), and ECSDaily - all of which are classified as reliable sources for the purpose of this project. The details mention about applicants MUST be between 10 and 15 years old on or before December 14. ESCDaily go into a little more detail by stating "The rules are very much the same as the ones at Junior Eurovision, with children having to be aged between 10 and 15 years (by December 14th)".
With the same dates being mentioned by more than one reliable source, and the fact that we know from all the previous contests, that the EBU rules state a participant must be between a specified age range on or before a quoted date; and that date in retrospect ends up being the date of the contest itself. Then I thought it would be of interest to raise this to the rest of the project, to see if we are to assume that December 14th is the final date. I apologise for assisting at my highest standard by searching the entire Internet full of reliable sources in order to help create a detailed article that is as up-to-date as possible. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did the good thing, but thanks for explaining; however, my opinion is that we should wait for a clearer reference. The date of the final is an important piece of information; if it was already decided, it would be announced officially, rather than individual broadcasters letting it linger among the lines of their preselection rules. Besides, the news sites covering the event have also read those rules; if they didn't think that line was important enough to report it as the date of the international final, neither should we. – Kosm1 fent 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that two broadcasters have perhaps released the date by accident, is what got me concerned. I know that no official announcement has been made about December 14 being the date of the contest - contrary to what our Russian friend on a previous thread said to me - I'm not that blind LOL! That is why I said in the original post above, that I found it strange that nothing has been published officially about a date - and when I say "officially" I mean no article is screaming from the roof tops that the contest is on December 14th. However, the two broadcasters who have started their selection process have both quoted the date December 14. This I find ironic. Besides, December 14th is unusually late for the contest! Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I know you are not blind. However, I just checked the ESCDaily links (and added them to the article) and the Dutch one mentions no date. Oh, and if you like juicy rumors, the JESC Steering Group meeting is taking place next month: [1] I reckon we will officially know the date by then. – Kosm1 fent 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooohhh a very juicy meeting in the Former-Eurovision city of Hilversum. Pity I can't attend, I'll be off to Wembley Arena, London on February 4, on the first of my Paralympic Volunteer Training events. Yes, I'm nervous as hell about it too - the last time I went to London was 28 years ago (and I'm 32 now). Travelling to London on my own is going to be an experience in itself. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, have fun at the Olympics. :P – Kosm1 fent 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the source verifying Russia's confirmation

Is songfestivalweblog.nl considered reliable? If yes, why? No other website is mentioning Russia's confirmation. I would much rather see speculation supported by established reliable sources. – Kosm1 fent 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be one of those on that list the EBU published a few weeks ago, and also listed here. Wesley☀Mouse 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that exact discussion, there is consensus that we should treat the websites other than those marked as "agreed" in a case-by-case basis. And songfestivalweblog.nl was not considered reliable until then. – Kosm1 fent 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think because the website has the word "blog" in it, that people are assuming it is a fan-made blog site. But I don't think it is appearing that way upon deeper inspection. The layout looks pretty much the same as ESCDaily and ESCToday, where "members" can comment as if it was a blog, but it is in fact a fan-news website just like ESCDaily and ESCToday. There is a full editorial team in the "contact us". Wesley☀Mouse 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the site is also powered by WordPress.org, there is an article on Wikipedia about WordPress. Wesley☀Mouse 16:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources" per definition are those "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Is that the case with this site? Merely looking like other reliable sites is simply not good enough. – Kosm1 fent 16:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WTH Wes, WordPress.com is a website software. LOL. Everyone can have a Wordpress website. – Kosm1 fent 16:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (arrrggh I hate Edit conflicts - LOL) What's with the "WTH" Kosmo? Please re-read what I said about WordPress. I said that it may be worth noting... emphasis on the verb NOTING, which is to take note of something being highlighted; in this case, WordPress. Anyhow, the site is looking like a Dutch version of ESCToday/Daily. If I remember rightly, we had this issue with another site that looked like a blog, but upon deeper inspection, the site carried out the same procedures as EscToday and EscDaily, but in a different language to English. Wesley☀Mouse 16:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you knew what Wordpress is, hence the WTH = "What the heck". Lol. As I said before Wordpress is a blogging software, which has nothing to do with the reliability of the sites they are using it. And to the matter at hand, songfestivalweblog.nl needs to be checked for reliability before it's used for something like a speculation, especially since they are the only site reporting Russia's confirmation (which should make you wonder how they found that out with zero press reports). – Kosm1 fent 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your theory then Kosmo, the same could be said for Belgium, and Sweden. Prior to Songfestival.nl's report, only ESCDaily had Sweden and Belgium listed as confirmed. Now this dutch site has them listed too. Neither ESCtoday nor the EBU have any country listed as confirmed, apart from the host nation. Wesley☀Mouse 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the only difference that ESCDaily is considered a reliable source and both countries' confirmations were supported by the websites of their broadcasters. – Kosm1 fent 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's compare the differences between what sources we have so far and the dates they where reported, against the dated songfestivalweblog.nl reported the same information. That way we will know if they are reliable or not... agreed? Wesley☀Mouse 16:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't think you'll find a site confirming Russia's return, thus songfestivalweblog.nl's reliability is immediately compromised. – Kosm1 fent 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point Kosmo. In comparing information between who reported which first, we would then be able to establish if what songfestivalweblog.nl publishes is reliable enough or not. Wesley☀Mouse 16:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not. Are you trying to prove that songfestivalweblog.nl's exclusives are accurate, or what? – Kosm1 fent 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was frustrating, I got logged out, and then couldn't log back in as the servers where apparently down. Anyhow, no I'm not trying to prove that songfestivalweblog's exclusives are accurate. What I am trying to work out is whether or not songfestivalweblog is reliable based on the information we currently hold on this article, and the timeline when they reported news against the timeline when other reliable sources reported the same news - that way we can work out if the Dutch site can be trusted or not. Wesley☀Mouse

Yes Wesley, it happened to me too... Annoying. – Kosm1 fent 17:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison

Details	Date reported by songfestivalweblog.nl	Date reported by reliable source
2012 host nation announced	11 October 2011	11 October by EBU
Ewout Genemans announced as male host	1 December 2011	26 January 2012 by ESCDaily.com (also 27 February 2012 by EBU)
Kim-Lian van der Meij announced as female host	26 January 2012	26 January 2012 by ESCDaily.com (also 27 February 2012 by EBU)
Venue announced	27 February 2012	27 February 2012 by EBU
Belgium confirmed participation	27 February 2012	5 January 2012 by ESCDaily.com
Sweden confirmed participation	27 February 2012	18 February 2012 by ESCDaily.com
Dutch NF selection information	3 December 2011	No other sources
Russia confirmed participation	27 February 2012	No other sources

Now with this comparison, we have established that songfestivalweblog have reported 1 piece of news before any of the other reliable sites, 2 pieces of news later than other reliable sites, and 3 pieces of news on the same day as other reliable sites - with 2 pieces still unknown. Wesley☀Mouse 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Props to them for reporting the male host 2 months early. Despite this however, I'm still undecided; I would appreciate a second opinion. I will notify the WikiProject shortly, so we can build a consensus together and maybe use that site in other articles as well. – Kosm1 fent 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that into percentages, the Dutch website published 12.5% of material before other reliable sites; 37.5% on the same day; 25% later; with 25% still unknown. With songfestivalweblog.nl having published 75% of the same material, as reliable source, whether it have been earlier, on-time, or later. Thus the remain 25% that is 'unknown' can be treated as trustworthy enough to be considered reliable/semi-reliable. Wesley☀Mouse 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea posting an invite to the project page, there is enough information here now for people to be able to build a consensus either way. And then we can at least update the list on the project talk page with an 'agreed' or 'disagreed' marker. Wesley☀Mouse 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I have been asked to give a third opinion on my user talk page. Websites with "blog" in them and those built with Wordpress do have tendency to be unreliable, hence why some Wikipedians are often quite judgmental based on these factors, even if that is not always sensible. For this particular website, it is quite difficult to be conclusive. There don't appear to be any cases presented so far of them getting it wrong with factual matters - unlike Oikotimes, which is a good sign. The fact they have an editorial team, as claimed above, is also a good sign, as websites controlled by one individual do tend to be unreliable. The only major downside with them is that the site is not in English, so it should not be used unless good sources in English are not available, per WP:NONENG. In conclusion, I would say that the site is likely okay, but I would use it with caution. CT Cooper · talk 20:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to have a look at this Cooper - very much appreciated. Personally I felt it was logical to carry out a comparison table to see the accuracy on factual matters that have been published by the site so far. All details published appear to be near-perfect to what other sources such as EBU, ESCToday, and ESCDaily have published - whether it be songfestival have published them before, in unison, or slightly after the other "trusted" sites. As the contest is in the Netherlands, I think we may have another "localised" case where Dutch sites appear to know more than others sooner; a bit like Azeri sites seem to know more about ESC2012. Wesley☀Mouse 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The site seems okay, but I won't be using it if a better source is available (much like Oikotimes). And in any case, Russia have confirmed their participation officially. [2] – Kosm1 fent 20:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the Dutch site has yet again published facts (in this case, the Russian participation) before a site that is seen as more trusted for the sake of the project. Wesley☀Mouse 20:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure, it will be useful to wait and see, and maybe it will gain a more solid reliability status in the near future. – Kosm1 fent 20:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? But you just said that "it seems okay" a few minutes ago lol. And the Russian broadcaster have 'confirmed' the factual details that Songfestival reported days earlier - I'd say that is pretty good accuracy and solid enough reliability for a site that is just "okay". Give them a break, they are probably a new site that rely heavily on people like us to trust them. Wesley☀Mouse 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have been operating since 26 December 2003, not really a new site. – Kosm1 fent 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "probably a new site" - the clue is in the probably, that I hadn't checked when they started operating. So far they haven't published anything that is fabricated to warrant them to be disloyal and unreliable. Although that would be 'subject to change' in the event that they did falsely publicise facts. ;-) Wesley☀Mouse 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that I'll personally avoid using them where I can if there are better sources available (much like what I'm doing with Oikotimes and ESCKaz). – Kosm1 fent 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, we blundered on the name haven't we!? Its not songfestivalwe blog; the company is called songfestival web log - an easy error I suppose. Wesley☀Mouse 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying, but if you are implying that I'm prejudiced by the site's name, you are wrong. As I said before, I will avoid using them where I can (a.k.a. if there are English sources available) in the spirit of WP:NONENG. – Kosm1 fent 20:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't implied anything Kosmo - whatever gave you that assumption? I was merely pointing out a wording fact that I had just noticed. I've also found something more interesting on that site. They have official partners, and a list of companies - the EBU and Dutch broadcaster TROS are amongst that list of official partners. Wesley☀Mouse 20:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly interesting, especially if the authors are TROS employees (that perhaps would explain how they knew about Russia's confirmation before anyone else?). – Kosm1 fent 21:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it does explain how they knew some details before "trusted" sites, and also published some facts at exactly the same time as he EBU. Wesley☀Mouse 21:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! Hold up Wes, the EBU and TROS sites are not listed in the "Official partners" column. – Kosm1 fent 21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Not that it matters very much, just an observation. 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) D'oh! I am well and truly wikibonked (as my talk page is labelled). But they have got ESCToday listed as a partner. And I did state the other day that songfestival-web-log appeared to format in a similar way to ESCtoday. Hmmm could it be a Dutch-language version of the ESCToday? Isn't Sieste Bakker from Holland? I wonder if that site is his "prototype" creation before he set up ESCT. Wesley☀Mouse 21:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's from Holland. Isn't that weird? (Sorry, I just had to make a Goldmember impression) I don't know Sietse ever wrote for the site, but it's worth checking out the relation between ESCToday and songfestivalweblog. – Kosm1 fent 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooooooohhhhhhh I love a good ol' Hercules Poirot problem solving mystery. Time to dig out my magnifying glass, and get some detective work in progress. Wesley☀Mouse 21:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESCToday have Songfestival web log listed as an official partner on their website too. ESCToday was created by Sietse Bakker in 2001, and went under the name eurosong2001.net. During the summer of 2001, the name changed to ESCToday; and several other language versions where created 2002 and 2003 - but they don't say the names of the other sites; unless the clue is in the "official partners" name. As both sites share the same list of partners. I can;t find anything from the Dutch site yet that has been published by Mr Bakker himself. Strangely enough though, ESCT mention in their "company history" about foreign language versions of ESCT being created 2002/2003; and songfestival web log was created in 2003. Coincidence or what? Wesley☀Mouse 21:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia being considered as hosts for JESC 2013

Looking at the sixth paragraph of this EBU article it is looking like 2-time winners Georgia are being considered to host JESC 2013 in Tbilisi. Now I have noticed several times in the past few months a lot of editors with Armenian/Azerbaijani/Georgian connections getting involved at a high rate and engaging in edit wars. With this in mind, it may be an idea to be on guard in case someone notices that or similar sources and creates JESC 2013-edit war. Wesley☀Mouse 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully the JESC 2013 is fully protected from creation, and can only be created by an admin or being asked for removal of the lock. The article is well maintaned by users and can be fixed (as well as other article) with warning and maybe page protections. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESCKaz updates

According to ESCKAz, Malta and Cyprus is a definite no-no for returning; so I'll mark them up as yellow on the map. Also, the deadline for countries to confirm participation has been moved to 29 June. Should this be mentioned on the article? Wesley☀Mouse 14:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

According to esckaz.com[3], the participating countries are; Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden. Look at the yellow box in the left. --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia had been added to the list once before, but without any sources whatsoever, so it was removed - which as we know sourcing is vital for any article on Wikipedia. The burden of citing sources is with the user who adds/restores content. Wesley☀Mouse 16:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Georgia before with a source,[4] but it was removed. --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oikotimes being the source will be one of the reasons it was removed. There has been an ever-rolling debate over Oikotimes being used as a source. They are not fully reliable, as members of the website can also publish news articles, and we've no real way of differentiating a true publication from a member one; apart from if Oikotimes also report a source of their news report, for which we'd most likely see if that source exists before using Oikotimes. Wesley☀Mouse 17:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously need to wake up and smell the coffee. Forgive me, Oikotimes was used for something else. However the link you used last time didn't direct to the article in question about Georgia; it only directed to the main ESCKaz page, which isn't helpful for the general audience at hand. Perhaps finding the exact article referencing Georgia's confirmation, and using that would be a better solution. Wesley☀Mouse 17:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oikotimes? It was esckaz. --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see. --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice?

I notice there have been problems with people adding unsourced content, speculation e.t.c. Would bringing back the editnotice for JESC articles, as I have maintained for ESC ones, help? CT Cooper · talk 04:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong gigantic support - yes please, didn't even know we had one for JESC. Wesley☀Mouse 04:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By default, its almost the same as the ESC one which are present in the 2012 and 2013 ESC articles at the moment. Since it shouldn't cause a problem, I will add it for JESC 2013 as well. CT Cooper · talk 04:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible cancellation?

I've heard that JESC 2012 may possibly be cancelled due to low participation, should this be mentioned in the article? I think I heard it on eurovoix if that helps.74.131.99.14 (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just yet no. I have read the same thing on various websites, and they all state that the EBU have extended the submission deadline to 29 June. If they don't have a minimum of 11 confirmed participants by that date, then they will make a decision whether to cancel or postpone. So let's be patient please and wait for something official from the EBU, as this isn't the place to be using crystal balls. Wesley☀Mouse 10:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be more debuts? Is that to date we are only 9 countries have given their confirmation !!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.151.0 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that we are only an encyclopaedia, not a news site or blogger site. The information you see on the article is as accurate as possible based on the reliable sources which have been verified. The EBU stated that in order for the contest to take part there needs to be a minimum of 11 countries. The deadline for submission of participation fees has already been extended twice. And I'm sure the EBU will be in a lot of meetings discussing these matters. So until they publish anything to state otherwsie, then we're to assume the show must go on. Wesley Mouse 11:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing this article

Please reassure me that I am not the only one that thinks it is ridiculous to be sourcing everything on this one article from just esckaz.com. Other websites such as escXtra and oikotimes (as unreliable as it is) are also reporting the news. It looks a bit stale and "same old, same old" that we are using esckaz as a source for everything here. Nathan | ^talk 18:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources should be used. However, the other reliable sources don't seem to be reporting some of the news that ESCKaz have done; otherwise we would gladly have used alternative sources. Oikotimes is semi-reliable and should only be used if they also state a source within their reports - if they don't then its not to be trusted as reliable enough. Wesley Mouse 16:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then escXtra.com is worth a look considering they had the Albanian participation confirmed by their Albanian editor before any other website? Nathan | ^talk 23:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did a source count on this the other day, and only found ESCKaz used 5 times in the article. ESCDaily and their sister company ESCXtra are used the most in this article. Wesley Mouse 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish

At the participating countries, the language which the chosen contestant of Belgium will sing is being called Flemish. This information is false as Flemish is a variety of the Dutch language and not a seperate language. More information can be found on Wikipedia's own page of the word Flemish. The Dutch Language Union (De Nederlandse Taalunie) gives more information about this subject on it's website. Could the word Flemish be changed into Dutch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.214.170 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Flemish is recognised as one of the languages used in Belgium. Even though it is a variety of Dutch it would be disrespectful to the Flemish-speaking Belgians if we too refused to acknowledge their nationalism. Wesley Mouse 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Belgium has three national languages: Dutch, French and German. Also Flemish nationalist organisations call their language Dutch. Dinsdagskind (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Angelova claims to be sending a song for Bulgaria?

BNT have given an official reason towards their withdrawal from Junior Eurovision 2012, but this young female artists claims she will be recording an entry for Bulgaria in JESC 2012 whereas BNT announced no participation?

I personally don't believe this is official, BNT would've announced it. We can't trust this rumour.

Source - http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2012/08/09/bulgaria-not-out-of-jesc-singer-claims-entry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.205.138 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rumour from what I noticed when I read it a couple of days ago. Someone had added Bulgaria as confirmed based on this very source, and I removed it as the source is a clear rumour - not factual. Wesley Mouse 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belorussian National Final to be held September 1st

Source - http://eurovoix.com/belarus-jesc-2012-national-final-running-order-announced/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.123.70 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thank you for notifying us of this piece of news. Wesley Mouse 04:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Running order draw

The running order draw is still taking place for the contest. And at the moment only the positions of 3 countries are known. An editors added those to the article but then left the rest of it with 2-6 and 7-10 on other countries which to me is a bit of a botch job. Please can we wait until the draw has completed and then implement the details thereafter? Makes more sense rather than having it left at guess work.

The draw as it stands looks like this:

1. Belarus
11. Moldova
12. The Netherlands

The remaining countries haven't received a draw position yet. Thanks - Wesley♦^Mouse 13:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A doubt here.

I know it's kinda OR, (I had to go to junioreurovision.tv to look up the birth dates of the members of Candy) but still, is it noteworthy that Anastasiya is the first person born in the XXI century to win the contest? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not be trivial information? Wesley♦^Mouse 14:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]