Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Polish withdrawal

I've just reverted the map, which had Poland as withdrawing, possibly from esctoday. I've reverted it since no official statement has yet to be announced. Also any Facebook post fails WP:SOCIALMEDIA. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think TVP have announced anything about a withdrawal yet. ESCToday and ESCDaily both state that an announcement was published both on TVP's official Facebook page, and also on the national broadcasters website. However, upon inspection of these sites, there is nothing published by TVP to state they are withdrawing from ESC2012. All I see are people posting things asking if rumours are true. So it all boils down to just scaremongering rumours once again. I'd say Poland should be replaced as "possible withdrawal" for now, until something more substantial is published to state otherwise. Wesley Mouse (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ESCToday have published an update on the current "saga" of Poland's withdrawal rumours. The update reads as follows... "Polish public broadcaster TVP have announced that an official statement on the country's participation or not in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest will be published on their official website soon.". I would include that statement into the article myself, but already done 3 edits to the page today (1 of which was fixing an error of my own), and don't want to be stepping into 3RR territory. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's done. (I think 3RR refers o three reverts, not three edits, and is a rule to apply in edit wars, which isn't the case here, am I wrong?) Not A Superhero (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that is correct (I think). Its that time of year where my brain turns to mushy snow, and everything inside it is hard to see through the blizzard LOL. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a little sick and tired of IPs and users removing Poland as "possible withdrawal", and citing them as fully withdrawn. I did include details above from what ESCToday published.
* TVP's facebook page haven't posted any statement about a withdrawal, nor has the TVP website.
* Oikotimes have reported that TVP1 won't be having anything to do with Eurovision for Poland this year - that doesn't mean Poland are withdrawing all together.
* TVP have other channels (TVP2 or Digital) which they could be switching over the broadcasting rights too.
* ESCToday also confirmed that TVP will make their official announcement on their own website - this announcement has yet to be published.
* And most importantly, IF Poland had withdrawn, wouldn't Eurovision.TV have announced it by now?
So, please avoid removing Poland until we have more substantial and official Yes or No to participation by Poland and/or the EBU. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to take the opportunity, if I may, to assist in what could be causing the mass-confusion regarding Poland's "alleged" withdrawal from the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, in Baku. Polish broadcast network Telewizja Polska (TVP) has many television channels as part of its network - TVP1; TVP2; TVP Sport; TVP Kultura; TVP Historia (to name but a few). It appears that since Poland's début, the Eurovision Song Contest has always been screened on TVP1. However, this appears to be changing from 2012, as TVP1 are changing their genre of broadcasting to a more serious one, including films, factual dramas (similar genres to those of the UK channel BBC2). As a result TVP as a "network" are looking into switching the broadcast of Eurovision to another of their channels (TVP2 or TVP Kultura) - so in reality Poland may not be withdrawing from the contest. I can see how people are getting confused, when they see statements from TVP1 stating they are "not broadcasting Eurovision 2012" - people assume that it means Poland has withdrawn - but alas this may not be the case. It is similar to Junior Eurovision in the United Kingdom; at first ITV1 broadcast JESC 2003, then between 2004/2005 the broadcast rights changed to ITV2, still part of the ITV Network, just a switch in channel.

So as you can possibly work out from this analysis, it is easy for people to get confused by an alleged "facebook publication" by TVP1 announcing a withdrawal. And now that the confusion is turning into widespread chaos, other Eurovision-based websites as stoking up an already heated-up fire of confusion by reporting a definite withdrawal, when no official announcement by TVP or the EBU has been giving to date. I would suggest that until such details are published officially by TVP or the EBU, that we avoid jumping on the bandwagon, and leave Poland as "possible withdrawal". Does this suggestion sound reasonable enough on a general and professional scale? Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Oikotimes, TVP just released a statement confirming their withdrawal. The article is here. However they don't provide the link to the statement, and I can't find confirmation in any other site. (If I had, I just would have done the edit myself). But I guess as soon as we get confirmation this would settle the issue. Not A Superhero (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wes, we should wait for an official confirmation from the EBU or something, or else there is going to be lots of edit warring here. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the same article from Oikotimes, and noticed that there is no sources. I'm also checking every article about Poland's "withdrawal" bring published by Eurovision-related websites, with a fine tooth-comb. TVP haven't published anything on their website about a withdrawal - so for now, I am not trusting Oikotimes artisle. ESCToday are now reporting the same news - and as much as I respect and trust that website, there is still nothing on TVP's website nor on the EBU's. This I find strange that other Eurovision webpages state TVP have announced a withdrawal on TVP.pl; yet nothing is on TVP.pl to collaborate what the broadcaster is alleged to have announced. Even the EBU haven't published anything, and they are pretty quick at giving out news of this nature. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

An announcement on TVP.pl's official Facebook page states that TVP haven't mentioned anything about a withdrawal to any press organisation yet, and they are still making their minds up as to whether to participate or not. An final decision will be announced at the end of this week by TVP. Therefore, I shall revert once more the inclusion of Poland being fully withdrawn for now. It's only Monday after all, so we might as well wait a few extra days. By which time, the EBU should have published the participation list anyway. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the alleged publication on TVP's website. Forgive me for looking silly, but since when did wirtualnemedia.pl become TVP's official website when TVP.PL still operates and appears to be more accurate with their details? Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This publication by ESCToday are citing themselves as the source of information to Poland withdrawing. That isn't really good using a source on Wiki from a cite that is citing themselves as the origin of information. Normally ESCToday cite where they have received information from, but on this occasion they haven't done so. And seeing as TVP are still to publish a statement on their official website. I am 90% dubious about the inclusion of that particular ESCToday article being used for this WikiProject. And the same bunch of users are ignoring the discussions here regarding the matter. Can something please be done about this as a matter of urgency, before unnecessary edit warring blocks start being issued out as early Christmas presents!? Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's being used in the article as a source (and the only source) on the most recent edit about the Polish withdrawal. Should I revert it? I share your doubts,since it's self-published and unsourced, it doesn't seem reliable to me. Not A Superhero (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its quite OK Superhero. I've agreed to let it drop for now. Even though I still hold doubts on the matter, I'm not overly convinced about the context being used in the source, especially the "self-sourced" within it. You can see a full transcript of a discussion about it here. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am NOT a Superhero :P. Ok, let's wait, and let's hope EscToday won't make themselves unreliable. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue of ESCToday citing themselves has come-up previously, and although that it may seem a bit odd, doesn't make these articles unreliable. Previous discussion and research (though I haven't managed to dig it up) found that ESCToday sourced itself when the information in the source is obtained internally by ESCToday staff, for instance some former ESCToday staff now work at the EBU, and information does change hands. CT Cooper · talk 13:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Poland on Eurovision

Please sign it in a petition to Poland sent their representative to Baku. http://escxtra.com/2011/12/fans-launch-petition/ http://www.petycjeonline.com/eurowizja_2012polska — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stramaj (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, as the message in top of the talk page says, this is not an Eurovision forum, but a page to discuss issues and improvement of the Eurovision article, so this is really not the right place to ask for this. Not A Superhero (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

F.Y.R. Macedonia in ESC 2012

Kaliopi will sing in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.30.122 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any source to put on the article with this? Not A Superhero (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom commentators announced already

As a Brit myself, I find this hilarious in a weird way. For the first time in the UK's Eurovision history (that I know of anyway), the BBC have announced (via ESCToday) who the commentators will be before they even tell people their national selection plans. You gotta love us Brits for doing things back-to-front LOL. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

UK RULES! Sorry about that bias shout. :D It's good to hear some news, however will wait on whether the Semi-Finals will be broadcast in HD, since BBC HD will become BBC Two HD sometime soon. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting about BBC HD being rebranded to BBC2 HD. I wonder if that means the semi-finals could face being switched from BBC3 and BBC HD channels to BBC2 and BBC2 HD channels!? Only time will tell. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When I first read this post, it sounded farcial to me but now I'm actually slightly happy that Scott & Graham will be back. It was a bit like the BBC's F1 coverage, as in Martin Brundle and David Coulthard didn't do the practise sessions. Still would like to know who's doing it for us this year though, but I wouldn't be surprised if our entry this year is eclipsed by the Olympics. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

On a more important note, does this mean that we can come to the assumption of "TBD January 2012" for singer, possibly song, and language (Eng)? Spa-Franks (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

regarding denmark and norway

according to escforum.net denmark might boikot it. as for norway they might be unable to air it because of a major terrorist trial.(which takes place during the contest.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Might" isn't encyclopedic at all. And, if I read correctly this Oikotimes article, the boycott has been sugested by OGAE Denmark, not by the broadcaster. The OGAE Denmark president already released a statement saying he was misinterpreted. I haven't found any information about Norway, can you provide us the link?. Not A Superhero (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And in any case, escforum.net is not a valid source per WP:BLOGS. – Kosm1fent 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia

Is there a reason Russia has been left out of the participants list on the Eurovision 2012 wiki page? I've read on sites such as http://escxtra.com/baku-2012/participants/ and http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/ are saying that Russia is participating Dark echo91 (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no reliable source announcing Russia's participation. – Kosm1fent 09:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use Oikotimes as they are only speculating and commenting on rumours about Russian Eurovision fans demanding Sergey Lazarev to be the representative in Baku. There is nothing anywhere on the Internet that provided confirmation on Russia participating. Also ESCXtra have produced a generic table, and are going off the rule that "every nation who participated in 2011 is to be treated as being present in 2012, unless they state otherwise. Again, we cannot create an article based on this rule; and only add countries that have confirmed via an official and reliable source. Hope this answers your question. Merry Christmas to everyone on the project too - Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

42 countries

ABOUT PARTICIPATION OF 42 COUNTRIES IT'S FULL DELIRIUM!

• United Kingdom does not officially confirmed! Don't confirmed — "BBC has not yet revealed anything about their plans for the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest in Baku", "We can expect the BBC to inform of their Eurovision Song Contest plans in January.".
• Italy does not officially confirmed! Don't confirmed — "According to Italian website Eurofestival News, as local fans expected, Italy will be participating in the Eurovision Song Contest in Baku! This is expected to be confirmed by Italian broadcaster RAI, and the EBU, in the next few days in an official statement." BUT DON'T CONFIRMED!
• San Marino does not officially confirmed! Don't confirmed — "No official annoucement has been made yet by the broadcaster regarding this matter, a decision and official announcement is expected in the coming weeks." BUT DON'T CONFIRMED!
• Romania does not officially confirmed! One Two — I don't see the selection rules 2012!.

Зарицкий Максим (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You made a similar thread on this topic just under two months ago, and my reply was here. My main point is the same as before; the standard required for inclusion of a country as confirmed is a reliable source stating it is confirmed, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Again going through the list:

• United Kingdom: The source you have linked is not being used to confirm participation, this one is, and it clearly meets the required standards, per my previous comment linked above.
• Italy: Source says they are confirmed; an official announcement is not necessary. If the source is reliable, we take it as its word, if it isn't, we don't use it.
• San Marino: A stated intention to participate as confirmed from a reliable source, which ESCToday certainly is, is sufficient for confirmation.
• Romania: I'm not familiar with these sources, though publication of the selection rules is not neccasery for confirmation

Overall, I don't think any of these countries should be removed at this point, and I have hence reverted these changes. I think it is worth pointing out that the article itself only uses the word confirmation once at the start of the "Participating countries" section with the lead instead using "announced their participation" - which does have a subtle difference in meaning. If the use of the term confirmation is problematic, then another term can be used instead. CT Cooper · talk 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• CONFIRMATION OF PARTICIPATION — IT'S A PUBLICATION THE RULES OF SELECTION OR OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION OF PARTICIPATION FROM BROADCASTERS! THE REST — IT'S IDIOCY FROM ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN WIKIPEDIA! WHAT THEY WRITE HERE ABOUT PARTICIPANT COUNTRIES — IT'S A FULLY DELIRIUM!.

PEOPLE, NEVER DON'T TRUST WIKIPEDIA! Зарицкий Максим (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Употребление "never" одновременно с "don't" говорит о многом :D--U.Steele (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't scream. Why do you consider that a confirmation by sources that have been proved reliable over time, to be enough to assume a country as confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 06:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Зарицкий Максим, I understand that English is not your first language, but in English posting comments in all caps is shouting and is considered rude and uncivil - which is not exactly the best method to get your way in content disputes. Indirectly describing editors as idiots is also not a good strategy. Your claim that we need rules or broadcaster confirmation to list countries as participators is not supported by consensus, and based on the arguments made for it, seems to be simply based on a personal opinion, rather than objective reasoning. Other projects may do things slightly differently, but the default standard for inclusion of content in an article is a reliable source saying it, and that extends to confirming participation. We could adopt a requirement for direct broadcaster confirmation or similar, though such requirements really would have to be noted in the article, and although I support reform in the system we use to list participants, I don't think that is the way to go. CT Cooper · talk 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was already discused (When Tony0106 challenged the .az websites) but I didn't read the full debate and the conclusions. How did it end? Not A Superhero (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Even your argument against the confirmation of the United Kingdom is flawed, as other sources are being used, and, besides, the source you have linked shows us that there will still be commentators there; we will be in Baku. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! Someone certainly has a bee in their bonnet and thrown their rattle out of the cot. Like everyone else has said, ALL sources being used are reliable. It is also best to use a variety of sources, and not just stick to EBU or Broadcaster websites. I think Зарицкий Максим needs to realise that some broadcasters like to announce their information on a variety of websites in a kind of "press interview" environment - which I see no reason why they shouldn't go about their business in this way. And as Spa-Franks rightfully pointed out, this link about the UK states commentators for the United Kingdom will be present in Baku. If the United Kingdom wasn't going to be present, then the BBC wouldn't waste money on sending out commentators to an event that they are "not taking part in". The information in the Daily Star link is very reliable. A tabloid newspaper is just as reliable as a national broadcaster website. And also Зарицкий Максим needs to realise that the BBC also stated that they will "see you in 2012", which is a strong indication that the UK will be in Baku. The BBC used a similar context after the Oslo 2010, when they said "see you in 2011". Now unless Зарицкий Максим can find anything else to back-up his allegations, then I suggest that he remain civil and resist vandalising the article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• For Wesley Mouse and others: The First:I am not vandal! The second: If you are blind - I'm not guilty! :)

For CT Cooper: I am very hope that all the same there will be changes in the system, which you use to list participants! Зарицкий Максим (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Зарицкий Максим, I find it very offensive that you call me "blind". And on the contrary to you saying you are not a vandal, in removing content that is backed and verified with official sourcing, when you have been told not to remove it, is in fact vandalising. Continuing to remove the content will only result in you being refrained from making further edits on Wikipedia all together, by having your account blocked for continuous vandalism. Both CT Cooper, myself and many other editors, have all explained to you what is classified as a reliable source. If you are finding it a struggle to comprehend editor's explanations, then perhaps it would be a reasonable suggestion that you discontinue editing on the English Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to further add, that I'm surprised you haven't been blocked from the Ukrainian Wikipedia after looking at the number of times you have actually violated the three-revert rule by undergoing a major edit war campaign on the Ukrainian version of ESC 2012 article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to be fair to Зарицкий Максим here and point out that while his is problematic, that doesn't make it vandalism. Vandalism is when users deliberately attempt to damage Wikipedia, anything done in good faith, no matter how wrong or disruptive, is not vandalism - see WP:VAND#NOT. Furthermore, he has only attempted to remove the content once on this project, which is to his credit, though I'm pretty sure that most projects have rules against edit warring, so this campaign on the Ukrainian Wikipedia should stop. Wes is right on the language issue - anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but it is necessary that editors are able to hold productive conservations on talk pages in English, and you (Зарицкий Максим), seem to not be acknowledging editors points in discussions. For example, when you combine this discussion and the one you previously started - I have had to repeat myself on the standards of inclusion for confirmed countries three times ([1], [2], [3]). Also, you have been asked by multiple editors to be civil, but you do not appear to be heeding these requests. It would be appreciated if you could clearly acknowledge that you have understood both these points. 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Not A Superhero: The result of the discussion was not to use news.az as a source, since it was believed not to be reliable, and in the end editors managed to put forward a good policy based reason not use news.az, that formed a consensus. The issue did go to meditation, but this was no longer needed once Tony0106 left the discussion after refusing to either drop or provide evidence for several accusations which were derailing dispute resolution, such as the claim that Wes was a sock puppet of myself (some of this happened on his user talk page). There was some discussion on reform of standards for confirming countries, but it didn't go too far. A proposal to only use EBU or broadcaster sources (aka primary sources) was also proposed in this discussion, similar to what was being suggested here, but was not accepted on grounds of contradicting WP:SECONDARY. The discussion can be found starting at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 1#news.az is an unreliable source and continuing through several threads over into the next archive at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 2. CT Cooper · talk 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Mr Wesley Mouse and others!"

"I have to be fair to Зарицкий Максим here and point out that while his is problematic, that doesn't make it vandalism. Vandalism is when users deliberately attempt to damage Wikipedia, anything done in good faith, no matter how wrong or disruptive, is not vandalism - see WP:VAND#NOT." — Thank you that you recognize this!

The fact that I edit in the 2012 Ukrainian version of ESC 2012 article — IT'S MY AFFAIR! And let's not interfere with each other to work on Wikipedia articles about ESC 2012. My position on this issue — it's my position! Your position (or others editors) — it's your position on this issue (question). Who of us is right — will be decided the visitors of the Wikipedia articles!

"I would like to further add, that I'm surprised you haven't been blocked from the Ukrainian Wikipedia after looking at the number of times you have actually violated the three-revert rule by undergoing a major edit war campaign on the Ukrainian version of ESC 2012 article" — WIKIPEDIA PROMOTES ITSELF AS FREE AND OPEN ENCYCLOPEDIA! BLOCKED ME, I WILL SEE :) Topic it's closed! Зарицкий Максим (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Зарицкий Максим, selective acknowledgement and quoting of other editors comments, as you did with my comment above, is not appreciated. While everyone is considered to have the right to read Wikipedia, editing is a privilege, not a right, that can be withdrawn. Edit warring is not acceptable on any project, and I won't turn a blind eye to disruption just because it is not on the English Wikipedia; I have not ruled out asking an English speaking Ukrainian Wikipedia admin to intervene over there if given cause. On the issue of "positions", we decide things here by consensus, and one editor does not have the right to declare a topic closed. CT Cooper · talk 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am utterly appalled and disgusted that a person can be so rude and obnoxious in the manner that Зарицкий Максим has been used towards myself and other editors on this thread alone. Firstly, to call respectable editors in here "idiots" and then to call me "blind" is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated at any level - and I still await a written apology or retraction of your nasty comments. On several occasions it has also been requested by several editors that Зарицкий Максим must remain civil, and avoid using caps (which is considered to be shouting in English). However, this request has been ignored more than once. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines set in place for a reason, regardless of which language version an editor is working on. These policies are there to aid people to work cooperatively and efficiently. Going about in ways of disruption by carrying our severe edit warring is unacceptable. The bad attitude that Зарицкий Максим has thrown towards other people in here that I consider to be good friends, is what prompted me to check the Ukrainian project to see if similar uncivil actions where being carried out there. And unsurprisingly, I found exactly the same foul-mouthed attitude being used there, not to forget the edit warring. Ukrainian may not be my native language, but with the technology of Google Chrome, a translation of the page was able to be done to work out the English translation to the written context. That was why I pointed out the fact that edit warring shouldn't be going on, and merely advised Зарицкий Максим, as a good-hearted wikipedian that I am, that he should refrain from continuous edit warring, before another editor on the Ukrainian project reported him for 3RR violations, and had his account facing a block. But has CT Cooper has also stated above, a responsible editor on any Wiki project wouldn't tolerate your incivility, and would be well within their rights to report such rudeness, to restore peace within the editorial team. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I did not want to insult anyone, I am just expressed my opinion. And I apologize to you (Wesley Mouse and others) for that I have called you blind.Зарицкий Максим (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted! It takes a lot for someone to acknowledge that a simple "sorry" can resolve even the most heated debates. I'm very proud that you have taken the chance to apologize. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Suus

This might be one for the language noticeboard....

• Source 1 - [4] ("sua : suum : (refl. poss. adj.) his, her, its, their own. "
• Source 2 - [5] ("suus, sua, suum; adj. his/one's (own), her (own), hers, its (own); (pl.) their (own), theirs;"

So what do we use for the English translation ?

doktorb _words^deeds 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My own? Mine? Ones? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to mean "That which is the personal possession", or "That which is an object to be owned" but that's not pithy...doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a doubt about the language of this song being already listed as Albanian and Latin. At least the last two years the winning entry of Festivale i Kenges has been sung in Albanian and then the Eurovision version is in English, so unless there's a source that explicitly says it will be sung in Latin and Albanian, I think we should wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Translator, "Suus" is Latin for "it". Not sure if that helps. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

ESCDaily have announced that the English translation of the song title is "Personal". Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Eurovision.tv will full publish the results of the selections in countries after March 19, 2012 (when will be held Head of delegations meeting), and then will know the correct translation.Зарицкий Максим (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

When that time comes, the entire list will be tidied up accordingly. In the meantime, it is sufficient to use the link from ESCdaily, to show the translation. Although, it should also be noted (as Not a Superhero also mentions) that Albania tend to sing a revamped English version of their entry. The participation list is due to be publish early-January, and the allocation draw will take place January 26. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that we in the English Wiki can't use the other language versions as a source, but as a "guide":

• The Russian Wiki has translated "Suus" as "Свой" which Google gives as "Its"
• The French version has gone for "Silencieuse", or "Silence". Is this a misunderstanding? Do they think "suus" is onomatopoeic?
• Turkish, Spanish and Welsh versions have chosen "Personal".

doktorb _words^deeds 11:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I do Latin GCSE and I've got "his, her, their". Not sure if that helps or not. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Certainly seems to chime with what I said at the start of this thread. It seems to me to be a "possession" type word, not easy to translate. Somewhat ironically, the word 'suus' does not feature at all in the song itself! doktorb _words^deeds 15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a tricky one this. Although a large proportion of online translator sites state "Its" is the translation of "Suus", some of them also give variations too, including "his, hers, their". ESCDaily have reported it to be "Personal". And technically, the disambiguation terms for "his, hers, theirs" and also "its" are all "possessive form" adjective words; which means something that is personal to a person. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this could do with a [note] at the bottom of the table to clear up uncertain translation of this.-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea - I second your proposal. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. Good job the Vatican City don't take part, eh? doktorb _words^deeds 21:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection expiry

This article was semi-protected soon after its creation in May 2011 for one year. While IP users have historically made some positive contributions to the ESC article of that year, the full time semi-protection in place this year has significantly reduced the time needed to "manage" the article. One issue though is that the protection is due to expire a year after it was set on 15 May 2012 - right before the contest is due to begin and when the article is approaching its busiest. In fact, by the time the final comes round it is difficult to edit the article unprotected without running into edit conflicts or reverting inappropriate edits by IPs every ten minutes. However, once a few weeks have passed activity drops off massively. Therefore I think a one off extension to the semi-protection by one month seems sensible.

Normally admins are not supposed to take administrative actions on articles in which they make content contributions to per WP:UNINVOLVED, however non-controversial straightforward actions can be permitted. Therefore, I would be happy to extend the protection by one month if there was unanimity for it and no objections on this talk page. Any thoughts? CT Cooper · talk 10:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I support :)--U.Steele (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support extending for one calender month for the reasons given doktorb _words^deeds 10:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Aye. Going back throughout earlier versions of this page (3 June 2010) then there was an edit war and one vandal listed the contest as being in Zimbabwe. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I support. Having the article non protected right before and after the Final would be really hard to manage. Not A Superhero (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I 200% support this idea. I know I like to chase down vandals and give them a Euro-bite on the ankles, but 2012 will also be a busy year for myself, so I might not catch the vandals as swiftly as I have done these past few months. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Definitely a good idea. – Kosm1fent 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay since we have unanimity, Y Done. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

France entry

ESCToday, are reporting that the French entry is to be called "Europa" and has a mixture of English and French lyrics; and will be presented at the end of January. Now I understand that the song title is (as ESCToday quote) a "working demo title". But as they do state the song will be in English and French, are we safe enough to mention the language option in the article at this stage? Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The article seems uncertain on what the exact language combination will be, so it may be best to leave it for the moment. CT Cooper · talk 13:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And let us not forget that debacle that happened in 2007 and 2008 with the French people "unhappy" over English lyrics. Seems like a bundle of speculation to me, which shows us that we shouldn't take everything from reliable sources for granted (ESCDaily debate in about August, NOTW phone-hacking scandal, tabloid newspapers (with the exception of a couple) in general...) --Spa-Franks (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone (can't remember who) has put in English & French as the language, but, having had a look at the source, I have decided to remove "English" as it says,

The song which has been written for Baku has been recorded in a demo version, and now Anggun and her team are re-working most of the lyrics into French.

I find this quite dodgy. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My changes have just been reverted and I hereby propose an "invisible note" telling people to leave it alone until we can find a suitable conclusion. My opinion: The source does not state nothing about English. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This new ESCToday report, now shows that the song language is in fact French and English. Although nothing more on the song title. So as far as it stands the title is looking to be "Europa" as mentioned in the first ESCToday post. Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Anggun herself said "one thing’s for sure: I don’t want to sing in only French or English, I want to make it 70% French and 30% English."[6] "Europa" is only a demo code, not the official song title Bluesatellite (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Although I had pointed out at the top (original post) that the title "Europa" is a working demo title. Which I further emphasized when I said "Although nothing more on the song title. So as far as it stands the title is 'looking' to be Europa". Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

San Marino hasn't officially confirmed yet

I'm sorry guys, but I have to dissent on San Marino's participation. On esctoday, the most recent article about the country states clearly that they haven't spoken out yet about whether or not they're officially in Baku. This http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17960 is the article I'm referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.132.88 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The link you are referring to was taken into account. However, there was another source (which is currently being used) that stated San Marino was withdrawing from Junior Eurovision 2011, in order to pour all their energies into organising a participant for Baku 2012. That speaks for itself really. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, San Marino are listed as attending in this link too. Although saying that, the final list of participating nations will be revealed in a few days anyway. By which time, the Wiki article itself will be altered accordingly, to reflect those published details. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we may as well just wait now for the final list of participants, which will result in a lot of references being replaced, and resolve all disputes over the participants list. CT Cooper · talk 13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact that in a few days the list will be changed, my aim was just to stress the fact that including San Marino in the list of confirmed countries can be a bit incorrect. Plus the reference I linked is - in terms of time - more recent than the one quoting Capicchioni's statement. Moreover, no official confirmation from the broadcaster itself is registered. I can say there have often been conflicts between Capicchioni and the Sammarinese delegation and SmTV shareholders (especially about JESC), although I cannot prove it with written references, I'm talking about quite confidential news. By the way, I encharged myself personally to include San Marino in the paragraph of "Countries with pending decisions", in the Italian page for ESC 2012. After all it's just an issue of days, it doesn't change that much if the news is confirmed/denied today or in three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.156.66 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just one more thing. More than a problem of organisation, San Marino has been facing some economical problems, lately. Which means that no matter what intentions they have, there's still the economical factor to take into account. http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/12/13/san-marino-rtv-verso-la-conferma-il-montenegro-sceglie-rambo-amadeus/ In the last three lines of the first paragraph it is reported that "economical issues, due to the dimensions of the nation, are not secondary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.156.66 (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak about the way the Italian Wiki Project operate their version of the article. Each language project do things slightly different, according to the general consensus of editors connected to their respective projects. The English version operates similar, and tends to follow the wikipedia guidelines more thoroughly. It is very pointless having a section on this project for "Countires with pending decisions", as that list would be neverending, and full of speculative content - which isn't following encyclopaedic structure. Remember, that Wikipedia isn't about publishing news, but about publishing factual details according to publications from reliable sources. And like we mentioned above, it doesn't really matter that much at this stage, as the entire list will get revamped in a few days, as soon as the final list is released by the EBU. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention the most important rule which the EBU use regarding "confirmation". The EBU treat every nation that participated in the previous contest as expected to be present in the following contest, unless a nation(s) state differently. As soon as the 2011 contest ended, the EBU's provisional list for 2012 would have included all that took part in 2011. As soon as a nation confirms a withdrawal, return, debut, or continuation - then the EBU make the respective change to that provisional list. When the deadline is reached, then the official list is published. So technically, as San Marino haven't stated either way on their intentions for 2012, then we should treat them as "being expected" to be in Baku. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all editors on this Eurovision Project, a A Very Happy New Year 2012 wherever in the world you may reside. It is much easier to post my good wishes here, rather than individually post on every users talk page. Let's raise a glass and hope that 2012 will be the best year EVER! Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a glorious new year everybody! May 2012 bring you health, happiness, prosperity and all the good stuff! – Kosm1fent 09:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It brought a hangover from hell. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a Happy Eurovision New Year! I don't drink, so I'm fine, hope Azerbaijan gives us a great contest as do the London Olympics. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I drink, but not enough to get a hangover (most of the time). Happy new year to all, and I look forward to continuing the good work on Eurovision articles into 2012! CT Cooper · talk 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations!--U.Steele (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg.

There's this Esctoday article confirming that they WON'T participate, but it's self-sourced, so I don't know if it can be properly used to list Luxembourg along with Andorra and Czech Republic at the beginning of "Participating countries" section. Not A Superhero (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I read that article too, and was wondering the same thing. Bizarrely though, another reliable site (either Eurovisiontimes or ESCXtra - can't remember off-hand) mentioned Luxembourg the other day, and reported that Luxembourg where looking into ways to withdraw their application for 2012. It struck me as strange, as I hadn't seen anything prior to that report stating Luxembourg had even applied to return in the first place. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Both Eurovisiontimes and EscXta just posted that Luxembourg is not returning, but they're using Esctoday as a source, so we still don't have independant comfirmation. Not A Superhero (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As it may have been missed, I explained why ESCToday sometimes cite themselves at the bottom of the #Polish withdrawal section. Such sources have never been an issue previously. CT Cooper · talk 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with CT Cooper; since ESCToday has established reliability in the Eurovision world, I don't see the issue with using self-published sources. – Kosm1fent 13:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Pot system

Could I seek permission to rewrite all the pot explanations? They seem very long-winded to me and hard to understand. I think 2012 is the only article where an understandable explanation is given. Spa-Franks (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask for permission, just do it. – Kosm1fent 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Time of the contest

do we know what time will the contest begin?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.166.87 (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All three shows start at 21:00 CET --MSalmon (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The time won't be affected for the adult contest. It was only the junior version that brought the time forward, as the 2011 contest was in Armenia, and the EBU felt it would be unfair to have the kids starting their performances in the early hours of the morning (Armenian time). Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ticket sales

I just thought that I would point out that in the ticket sales section, it states that tickets will be on sale in November 2011, when it is now January. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm sorry in case I have gone about this in the wrong way. Thanks! ReallyWow (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I have no clue either! Spa-Franks (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had altered the tickets details back in November!? The EBU had mentioned that ticket will go on sale once the final decision on arena venue has been made - which I should point out, is any day now. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ivi Adamou in Limassol Republic of Cyprus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ivi Adamou in Limassol Republic of Cyprus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been deleted to me. When I accessed the article there was no image, so I removed the image from the main page. But I still feel we need a few more images on the page. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was speedy deleted from Commons for being a copyright violation. I didn't see the image before deletion, but it was probably either a screenshot from TV or a photo taken from another website. CT Cooper · talk 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

At least an image of an artist would be great. I saw the Ivi image yes, changed the caption though.

Romanian participation

From ESCToday and Romanian newspaper 'Adevărul'. (ESC TodayAdevărul)

Reporting that the Romanian decision will be taken to tonight of whether to participate. However last years 'Cut off point' was in December was it not? What about the source we have on the article not? Anyway stay tuned.

The cut-off was December 25, 2011 (that I know of from reading somewhere on EBU). The pot-allocation draw takes place on January 26; and the EBU is suppose to be announcing the list of participating countries any day now, along with details of the venue and when tickets go on sale. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Romania's withdrawal is allover the internet. Opinia Timisoarei confirmed there is certitude Romania won't be part of ESC 2012. Eve thought, it is not the most reliable source. But look it up on Evenimentul Zilei (Romania's participation and entries in 2007, 2008 and 2009 were taken off this newspaper's website) EVZ and even lots of artist, most involved in past editions of the contest already criticized the withdrawal on Cancan, additionally Mihai Trăistariu who ranked #4 in 2006 and he's an important figure when it comes to ESC Romania announced he was to enter the Romanian pre-selection, but due to the withdrawal he will submit his entry to the Moldovan jury. eNational develops the subject. Moreover, we also have the question mark on the earlier ESC Today article and various other articles in at least 3 languages. What more do you expect?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Innano1 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, per WP:BURDEN, sources should be provided when information is added or changed in the article. Secondly, simply adding Romania as withdrawing in the infobox is not sufficient - some text on the subject needs to be provided. Furthermore, an updated ESCToday source would be helpful before Romania is listed as withdrawing. CT Cooper · talk 12:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oikotimes and Adevărul say that Romania is in, but they haven't decided on their budget yet. – /an.dre.jiˈʃor//tɔːk/ 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Poland in the infobox.

Is there any reason Poland doesn't appear anymore as "withdrawing" on the infobox? Not A Superhero (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is because, even though Poland have stated they are withdrawing, the EBU have announced that they are in negotiations with Poland to allow them to continue participation, by offering to lower the fee and also providing financial support in regards to broadcasting the other sporting events. Wesley Mouse (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit of thanks!

I would just like to say thank you to everyone who pours their souls into this. Yes, I mean you, CT Cooper and Wesley Mouse amongst others. I think you should get some gratitude! Spa-Franks (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100% :D -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. Unfortunately I'm very busy for the next two weeks, though after that I should be editing this article more frequently again. CT Cooper · talk 12:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Thank you ever so much for the kind words Spa-Franks, they mean more to me than any barnstar in the world. I personally feel passionate about Eurovision, and only doing what any other dedicated editor would do, by working hard and as part of a team. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you two especially just get that balance right between "Euro-bites on the ankles" and kindness, not moaning and constantly reverting things as I know some on other articles do! Spa-Franks (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Participation List

According to reliable sources, the EBU are expected to publish the official participation list within the next 7 days. Could we all please be vigilant and make relevant changes as soon as this list is in the public domain. We should know more then about Armenia and Poland too, along with the other "disputed" countries that have been rumoured to be withdrawing, returning, or making a debut. Thanks - Wesley Mouse (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken references and other issues.

The recent removal of references have broken several remaining citations in the article, resulting in lots of red text in the references section. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to wipe out entire sections just because the EBU list has been published. Any historical information about participation should still be left permanently somewhere per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM i.e. Morocco proposed return should be mentioned somewhere, along with the issues relating to Armenia and Poland. I haven't got time to deal with these issues at this moment unfortunately, so could someone with a spare moment please look into it. CT Cooper · talk 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into that for you Cooper, and have something sorted by the end of the day. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wes, I don't like to burden other editors but I'm only writing these messages during the brief breaks I have. I should have more time over the weekend, but given the high level of hits this article will now be getting, I thought that would be rather late. CT Cooper · talk 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK no worries, I have a few ideas regarding your (above) suggestion already.
*Idea 1: Create a new section in-between Returning Artists, and Commentators - headed as "Unsuccessful Returns" (or something else if anyone can think of a better heading). This section could include information about Morocco.
*Idea 2: Create a new section in-between Returning Artists, and Commentators - headed as "Unsuccessful Participation" (or something else if anyone can think of a better heading). Using this header would allow us to include information about Morocco, as well as Armenia's 'technical' issues (for better choice of terminology) and the possibilities that Poland may in fact be present if the EBU manage to convince them to stay.
In using the latter idea, we'd be able to also include the text for Andorra, Czech Republic, and Monaco too; thus slim-lining the large paragraph that is currently shown immediately under the heading "Participating countries"; and keeping details from the original paragraph that are only relevant to the "confirmed list", which would follow immediately underneath in their respective tables. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Idea #2 all the way. It would be neat to incorporate all unsuccessful attempts at participating in one section. – Kosm1fent 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The red reference errors was my fault when I consolidated the sources into the EBU 43 List, but not the paragraph removals. I know I took a long time, but I had some real life issues (nothing big), the previous sources are back. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the red links out AxG. That has saved me some time. I'll get cracking on the main issue now, and have this new section added within the next hour or so. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AxG for fixing that. I agree that idea two would probably work best. This has been an issue in previous years, and generally such information has been left at the top of the participation section, which is not ideal. CT Cooper · talk 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just done a rough draft version on my sandbox page to show how the idea would look. I'll go through the older versions of the main article to grab text for Morocco, and reword it accordingly. Feel free to have a sneak peek and let me know what you think of the draft version. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look, the Liechtenstein part is unsourced, "In the Summer of 2011" could do with a date or change this to "In the second quarter of 2011". -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, I only realised about the source for Liechtenstein after I saved the draft on my sandbox. But I have the source for it ready to include in the article. I also feel as though something is lacking about the context for Armenia. Any ideas? Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding the name and link to "Nagorno-Karabakh War", of which both are still arguing about. As well as the fact that Armenia's are not allowed in Azerbaijan. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help about Armenia; I'll ad those details to the draft. Eurovision Times have also just reported that Armenia still isn't confirmed, even though they are on the participation list. Security hasn't been officially granted for them, and they may still withdraw, apparently. Sorted out Liechtenstein links too. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall task complete Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good work Wes. This new section is very informative. CT Cooper · talk 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just one thing - Morocco's "bit" hasn't got anything about abandoning their attempt to participate. Spa-Franks 20:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa-Franks (talk • contribs)

Thanks Cooper, all in a days work. As for Morocco, the short paragraph along with the fact it is under a heading "unsuccessful participation", kind of becomes self-explanatory in its own right. I see the heading has been altered too - nice job! Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I share some of the credit with AxG too. The help proof-reading the draft version via my sandbox helped immensely. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The WIkipedia Blackout will present problems for this article

As you know, the English Wikipedia will be blacked out due to a US bill which has nothing to do with us (hence why I want an English (US) version of Wikipedia and English (UK)) and we will be dragged in to the US' affairs once again.

From an "article" point of view, Slovakia are choosing their song "in January", as are Bosnia. The UK will "reveal its plans in January." Therefore if something happens tomorrow, I believe that it is in our best interests that anyone bi-lingual look out and see if changes happen to other wikis tomorrow.

Thanks for reading, but having proof-read this I don't think I've really got what I want to say across here!

Once again, thanks for reading. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean we're getting a wiki-holiday as a result of the blackout? OMG!!! how will my wiki-life cope not being able to see wiki? I eat carrots, and they say you can see in the dark if you eat them. Will eating wiki-carrots help me see in the wiki-dark too? LOL Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK nothing to do with the article, but it is possible for it to be blacked out in the US and open in the UK, their was a poll on this somewhere about the SOPA blackout, also Wikipedia could adopt the Chinese style in which it has a drop down menu to pick from 'Tradition', 'Simplified' etc. I'm sure we will be fine for 1 day, any new stuff from the EBU, ESCToday etc websites can be bookmarked and added after it ends. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, I understand that it won't work!

AxG, from a quick skim-read of the now-archived SOPA discussion this isn't what is intended.

I won't say what my position on the whole matter is! I might get into trouble with Wikipedia's big US cheeses! Spa-Franks (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the suggestion Spa-Franks said earlier. Would this blackout also happen on other language versions? If not, then I can keep a close eye on the Welsh version, and update that accordingly, and then when the English version goes "lights on", then I can translate any updated information onto the English version. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"As of January 17, German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons were expected to run banners on January 18, without a full blackout". As for me I could edit the Simple English Wiki, unfortunately I have no knowledge of Welsh :D -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BBC News have reported in more detail about this blackout. And there is even a telephone interview with Jimmy Wales, who explains things more simplified. Hope this aids as a help to anyone who is finding it hard to comprehend what's going on, and why it's happening. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom: BBC hints at internal selection

Is this from the BBC's website a strong indication of an internal selection? Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It just depends what the original publication date of that article is, it would be a bit late for sending in songs now. With the BBC's 'Delivering Quality First' cuts, and the Olympics, Euro 2012, etc, It may not have the budget for a selection show this year. The Daily Star was indicating the BBC were looking for some established singer(s) like; Charlotte Church, JLS, The Saturdays etc. I do think it will be an internal selection of the artist, Blue were confirmed on 29 January, so maybe a January/February announcement? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about Blue actually. I remember now when it was announced last year about Blue, that they also said in their statement that Blue had been working on their song since November/December 2010. So who knows, the BBC could have chosen already and the song is being written by our mystery artist(s). Wesley Mouse (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This shows that the publication date for that announcement by the BBC was on September 13, 2011 - which just under a month after the publication by the Daily Star. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This may sound like speculation but I think I may know who it could be as a major band is about to release a single within the next few days. I'm not sure when the release date is, but "the single is now available to pre-order." My thoughts are One Direction with "One Thing" but I am probably wandering into speculative comment territory. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much doubt it would be One Direction. Simon Cowell isn't exactly a huge fan of Eurovision, and he wouldn't want to put one of his current successful acts onto the chopping block so soon. Plus it has been a good few weeks since the guys released anything new from their current album, so it could be pure coincidence and speculative. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

JLS? That was one of the "speculations"! Spa-Franks (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of speculations doing the rounds on Twitter, Facebook, and many other sites that Adele has been approached. But, alas, the BBC haven't confirmed nor denied these speculations. Does this sound like a repeat of last year, when rumours about Blue did the rounds, and everyone dismissed them, only to be stunned when the BBC finally decided to cave in and tell the truth in the end. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) One Direction? Hm don't like the idea, Blue at least had some fans on the continent and may have been better known. Also if we were sending Adele, I would jump on the next plane to Ireland and vote for her! (I feel this comment is more WP:NOTFORUM, than Wiki talk :) ) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree about the WP:NOTFORUM. We have strayed off the main topic of discussion slightly, and got carried away with the ESC fairies. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Belgium

I'm having doubts about the link for Belgium regarding the date of the song selection. First one was being used stating "February". But that link upon inspection didn't even mention anything about a date for the song selection, only that the selection team where hoping to have made a short-list of songs by February. Now today, a user has change the details to January adding a new source. However, that source doesn't even state anything about song presentation schedules. From what I can make of it, it is informing about the "selection team" are now hoping to make a short-list by the end of January (which is basically similar details as the previously used source). Due to this uncertainty, would it not be wise to leave the date as blank, as we're basically speculating and guessing on a date. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree Unsourced speculation is a no-no. – Kosm1fent 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the thing, both times the alleged dates have included sources. But the sources don't highlight a date for song presentation. So the user is probably reading between the lines and coming up with an assumption. 1+1 should = 2; but in this case (and I'm not getting at the good-hearted user) the answer to 1+1 is uncertain in their eyes. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved. Both the sources that were being used are referring to Belgium broadcaster Één selecting the song. However, we all know that it is VRT's turn this year, as Één were responsible for Belgium's entry last year. VRT website hasn't released any details on song presentation yet. The only details are that they hope to present the song in February or March 2012. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Venue

On the Baku Crystal Hall page, an unsourced comment says that "the venue was confirmed on 12 Jan". Discuss. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BURDEN. I couldn't find such confirmation anywhere. – Kosm1fent 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SkyScraperCity has some good photos of the of the build, as can be seen it's up to the roof, I would say a before May finishing date is possible. As if the actual venue will be used, I would say if the EBU or İTV have not confirmed it then we should wait until they do. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The EBU still haven't made a decision on the venue. Although we should know more at the Insignia Exchange next week, when the allocation draw is made, and also details on the visual logo and slogan. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The choice of venue is to be announced at some stage tomorrow (25 January), along tickets going on sale, logo and slogan concept - as reported by ESCToday a few moments ago. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The crystal hall has just been confirmed as the venue by the EBU - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=45013&_t=crystal_hall_approved_as_eurovision_2012_venue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.211.191 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

regarding the norwegian selection

could anybody create a norsk melodi grand prix 2012 article. it seems that the 10th song in the final will be decided by a jury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

All the content is available at Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

sweden have a separate article for their selection process so why shouldnt norway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk • contribs)

Sweden's main page is Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Although their selection show Melodifestivalen has been around just as long as Eurovision, and therefore warrants having an article in its own right. The same goes for Sanremo Music Festival, however Sanremo doesn't have an article for each of their annual contests. There is however an article for Melodi Grand Prix which is generic and gives reasonable information on what the contest is. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It may also be worth reading What Wikipedia is not and notability for further explanation about why such an article hasn't been created for Norway, and yet has been for Sweden. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is far easier for articles to be named the same, also mostly if we did this for every country then it would be ridiculous, it would be almost be having two articles with near identical content. As said San Remo pre-dates Eurovision of which it was based on. the Albanian selection show and Melodifestivalen are also just as old, and in my opinion Melodifestivalen is one of the best and well know selection shows. Also we do have a Melodi Grand Prix 2007 article for some reason, as well as some others. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Allocation Draw

OK folks, the allocation draw takes place at 16:00(GMT) on 25 January - as most of us know by now. I'll be watching it live via the web, and I don't mind keeping the article updated accordingly in the process - if that's OK with other editors? Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I might be also watching, but will stay clear of 'edit conflicts':). Hopefully the logo is easy enough so I can recreate it in SVG, unlike 2011 and 2010. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave the logo side of things with you AxG, I might be getting myself into deep water if I started to do that side of the project. The map, yes I'm fine with, logos is a no go for me. I'm surprised there are no details about the six pots at this stage. The EBU normally give details on those a couple of days before the draw takes place. I wonder why they've decided to keep that under wraps this year!? Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This afternoon/night, I will update the pages for each country to reflect on which half of which semifinal they will compete. But I'm not sure which source would be better: EscToday or Oikotimes? EscToday has a better reputation, but for this particular article, I found Oikotimes easier to read and more clear. Any thoughts? Not A Superhero (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Logo format

Just a quick question, I'm recreating the logo into SVG. Should the logo be horizontal or vertical? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I thing vertical should be better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Innano1 (talk • contribs)

 Done I bet you would not notice the change (apart from the page History) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope this new part of the logo is still public domain when it comes to the threshold of originality. The bottom text is definitely okay, but the top is more questionable. CT Cooper · talk 10:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the orange thing above the generic Eurovision logo clearly doesn't consist of "simple geometric shapes", so I highly doubt the whole logo belongs to public domain... – Kosm1fent 11:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon inspection of Eurovision.tv it appears that the general public can get the logo as a background for their android phones for free. Would that not suggest that if the EBU are allowing people to get that free of charge, that it is in open public domain? Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether the content is being freely distributed or not isn't considered relevant to a file's copyright status on the strict copyright policies of Commons, in particular the commons:Commons:Precautionary principle. By default, content is copyrighted if its over the threshold of originality, which this appears to be, and it appears unlikely that the EBU will formally release the logo into the public domain or under a free license, as would be required for Commons to host it. CT Cooper · talk 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I see. I wasn't too sure, but thought I'd best check and inform on what I found. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I tend to avoid, uploading Logo's as such to Commons. It can be a bit hit a miss, freely available maps are fine, but most of the Non-free images are uploaded here. Just say the word, and I'll upload the logo here and revert the one on Commons. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend hosting the more complex version locally. CT Cooper · talk 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Suus

Sorry to bring this up again, but "Personal" just does not "cut it" for me (baring in mind I'm the guy who is doing Latin GCSE!) and I think "His, her, their" would be better. I might be "violating" WP:BOLD but I feel that we have already had this discussion, so I didn't want to do that! Basically it seems like "Personal" is a noun at the moment, and those that don't do Latin will think that "Suus" is Albanian for personal, which of course, it isn't. I feel a little note at the bottom would be sufficient. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It was explained here about how the decision for "personal" came about. To put the translation listed as 3 words "his, her, their" is a little bizarre in all honesty, especially when the title is "Suus" which is only one word. The term "Personal" covers all aspects of the meanings of "his, her, their" as they are all possessive adjective words; which means something that is personal to a person. Hope that helps. It was agreed also to have a note at the bottom to explain that Suus has many "different" meanings, but this doesn't appear to have been done. Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Song dates?

Is their any reason why we can't use the EBU Calendar for a single consolidated selection source? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree I like this idea. Wesley↮Mouse 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article issue(s)

Hey, shouldn't we expand the article? For example, the Format and Participating countries portions could be expanded. Also, why to keep Andorra, Czech Republic or Monaco in the Unsuccessful attempts to participate section as they had no plan to return for the 2012 contest, while Poland and Morocco were pretty much involved in the pre-Eurovision months, intending a return (the latter one) and the withdrawal. We should also put Romania to the POSSIBLE WITHDRAWALS list as, even confirmed, they didn't plan anything for the National Final and still depend on some funds and on a lowered budget to enter the contest.

Then, once again, Suus doesn't mean personal. It means their. THEIR, for God' sake! Look it up in a Latin dictionary or even Google it! It may also be reffered to as 'his, her' but, how in English we say they instead of saying he, she whe can also use Their instead of his, her, don't you think? Translating it as "Personal" is quite a misinformation unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

Furthermore, the articles for San Marino and Slovakia in the contest shouldn't be redirected to the same article... Nor Armenia's link reddened. There should be only normal words with no link to any other article until we find enough notable information and reliable sources to start the articles.

Thanks to whom read this and who will debate the subjects therefore. I am always here for some help. Yours faithfully, Innano1 ^(talk) 22:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC+2)

On the Latin issue, I don't have a strong opinion, though ultimately it should be the sources that decide, not editors opinions. If "Personal" is the only translation that sources use, we have to go with it, and the only possible change in such a circumstance would be a small note about alternative translations. The unsuccessful attempts to participate section was created per consensus with the #Broken references and other issues. The title is on review possibly not ideal for all the countries listed, though they all should be mentioned somewhere in the article permanently. Possible withdrawals section are normally only appropriate before the EBU participants list is published; the re-creation of one could now only be justified with clear sourcing suggesting a late withdrawal. The circle links were caused by premature creation of entry articles, and could be removed, though removing red links would go against WP:REDLINK, and should really stay. This is only a temporary issue, so it hasn't concerned me much. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I will cover each question individually.
Format: We can only expand the format section once more reliable sourced details are released via the EBU or host broadcaster. Everything that is mentioned in the format section is covering all details in public domain so far.
Participating countries: This section has been reduced as per discussion and consensus (please refer to #Broken references and other issues). Former details that where included in there have now been moved to the Unsuccessful attempts to participate section. This helps to maintain a easy-read flow, by keeping relevant information about participating countries in its respective section, and details on non-returns in the latter section. Combining them together would only confuse readers.
The inclusion of Andorra, Czech Republic or Monaco are within scope. Both the Czech Republic and Monaco had hinted at the possibilities of a return, but later did a U-turn on their decisions. Sources have been used for every country listed in the "unsuccessful" section, as well as brief explanations for each of them.
With regards to Suus, please refer to this archived thread which explains why the translation being "personal" is easier to use than having 3 or 4 different translations for the same word and confuse people. Even though many Latin dictionaries have the word Suus translated as "his, hers, theirs, or its", the disambiguations for each of those 4 words are all adjective words in the possessive form, relating to something that is a "personal belonging" to one's self. If something is "his" then that "something" is personal to a male. The same would be if something is "hers" then that "something" is personal to a female. The use of "personal" is the neutral version covering all meanings. Besides, going off previous Albanian entries, they tend to revise the song into a full English version, so the song title may likely change in the run-up to contest.
Hope this explains things as simplified as possible. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Suus, I must highlight you that as found on Latin-Romanian dictionary it translates as al lor, which, as you can also Google-translate into English, means their (only one form a in they for he, she). This taken in consideration, we don't have to use the long form that covers all personals instead of personal, word that - translated into latin would give alio and further: PROPRIUS, DOMESTICUS or PERSONALIS. It's just a suggestion; "Personal" might stay there as long as a comprehensive footnote is added by.Innano1 ^(talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC+2)

You're also forgetting what CT Cooper pointed out in his comments. Other reliable sources also state the translation to be "personal". And seeing as using reliable sources is vital for any wikipedia project, then we must stick to those policies. Only if other reliable sources state differently, may we then revise the translation held on the article. A footnote was added, but appears to have vanished again. Other language versions of Wikipedia also appear to have "suus" translated as "personal". Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Then, what about adding a comprehensive and understandable footnote in which to present the literary form of "Suus"? Innano1 ^(talk) 10:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC+2)

Because there's no need. We've gone through this. There's a link to the discussion (which I started). Other reliable sources translate the word as "Personal". No reliable source translates the word as "his, hers, their". Notwithstanding the likelihood of Albania changing the title anyway, we can only use what others have concluded is appropriate to use. WP:OR is something to keep in mind here. doktorb _words^deeds 19:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with doktorb. If you're still in doubt Innano1, then please refer to this original thread created by Doktorb; and/or this second one started by Spa-Franks regarding the overall outcome as to why "personal" is being used. Wesley↮Mouse 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Romanian Artists

I have removed Inna from the artist section for Romania. Firstly the source used has pornographic material included in it, which is inappropriate as younger viewers also read Wikipedia, unless a disclaimer is added to the article to warn readers that some links direct to pornographic material (as per WP:PORNESSAY). Secondly, upon reading the source, it clearly states that Inna was asked to participate in Eurovision for Romania, but because of her concert tour "I Am The Club Rocker" she could not accept the invitation to represent Romania this time. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

ESCToday published an article on 13 January which announced Romania's confirmation for 2012. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, some unreliable sources lately rumor about a possible participation of Inna at the National Final, or even more about TVR still discussing with her about representing Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest but 2012 wasn't specified. I will keep up with all reliable sources in Romanian (if English ones won't be able) and I will first post on this talk page, unless TVR/EBU/Inna herself confirm this rumor. A Eurovision Song Contest entrant of 2012 tag was also put on Inna's wikipage and I shall take it down by Tomorrow (January 28) morning if no reliable further information is given as of then.Innano1 ^(talk) 00:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC+2)

I've removed the sentence from her page, the translated text for the source title contradicts the sentence: "In January, 2012 it was announced that Inna will represent Romania in..." the source title reads "Inna vrea sa reprezinte Romania la Eurovision" ("Inna wants to represent Romania at Eurovision") the important word their is 'vrea'. The source does contain an inappropriate image, for Realitatea TV, which airs: newscasts, talk shows, debates and analysis, science and IT, TV magazines, and any form of informative program -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be highly unlikely that Inna (or any other well-known singer) would cancel a concert tour that has been planned for over a year. Not only would it be costly to reimburse fans with ticket fees, but it would also embarrass any recording artist. The link that was used did read in the heading "Inna vrea sa reprezinte Romania la Eurovision" ("Inna wants to represent Romania at Eurovision"). Yet further down in the interview with Inna, she goes on to say "I was asked to participate in Eurovision for Romania, but because of the concert tour "I Am The Club Rocker" I could not accept". I'd say for now, to leave it blank as there is uncertainty, not just in the article, but also the unlikelihood of a concert being cancelled for priority over ESC representation. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks then and yet I have to remove the Category:Romanian Eurovision Song Contest entrants tag from the Inna article. I might add some information about the discussions with TVR to one appropriate section. Innano1 ^(talk) 10:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC+2)

If you're thinking of adding some information about the discussions between Inna and TVR, then it would be better to keep that confined to Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, and not add it to this main ESC article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Georgia

Anri jokhadze will represent Georgia in Baku — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.53.12 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Source? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumours of UK representative

The rumours about the UK representative are blazing around the web like wildfire. Several sources (ESCflashmalta, and BBCEurovision's official Facebook page) are publishing unconfirmed news that the Sugababes have been internally selected. So please be on guard of potential vandalism from editors adding Sugababes to the article, until we know more official details from the BBC themselves. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Luckily this page and the Sugababes article is locked for IP editors :) Although United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest, United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 and Sugababes are already in my watchlist. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be wise then to also have both of the United Kingdom pages protected, for approx 1 month, just as a precaution? Wesley↮Mouse 16:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless they have sufficient enough vandalism, then yes, but having it locked just for some speculation of something being added to the article in the future is not really what locking an article is for. (whether that makes sense?) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AxG. "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" per WP:SEMI. By the way, the Sugababes = ewwww. Period. – Kosm1fent 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense. I'm sure collectively we can keep an eye on the articles in question, and deal with them as and when any acts of vandalism occurs. I've also added both UK pages and Sugababes to my watchlist too. Wesley↮Mouse 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am actually quite annoyed with the BBC now - they like to do things last minute - especially since I was about to put "TBD January 2012" towards the end of January! I think it is safe to say that we shouldn't put "TBD x 2012" at all as sources can be proved wrong, as is the case with the commentator source. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding date details anyway without citing reliable sources. If in the event that the reliable source ends up being wrong, then that isn't our fault as editors. We all know that schedules/decision can change at any given time. As for the commentators details, they warrant an inclusion at this stage, as a reliable source is being cited with the details (which are correct at the time of publishing). If the details change, then we just simply update the article accordingly. Its not too much hard work is it? Wesley☀Mouse 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One vandalism of the aforementioned page has occurred (and reverted). Spa-Franks (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too Spa-Franks. At the moment, I'm keeping a watchful eye on a user who is constantly uploading and re-uploading non-free copyvio images and claiming them to be their own property. I wouldn't mind, but all the images are mocked versions of EBU material, and no way on this Earth are they "official" nor "the sole property of one person". Wesley☀Mouse 16:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm keeping a very very close eye on the UK page (it's been in my watchlist since creation), especially since the BBC Eurovision Twitter account is back up now. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There's rumbling noises coming from the volcanic chamber we call BBC's Eurovision Facebook page. They state an announcement on the UK entry is coming "very soon!". Anyone who has Facebook, keep a close eye on there and their Twitter page. I suspect something being "leaked" within the next 48 hours. Wesley☀Mouse 17:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doing that already! Spa-Franks (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Star on Sunday says Atomic Kitten - [7] doktorb _words^deeds 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This has just been brought to my attention by another editor too. However, if you read the Daily Star article properly, it quotes that the BBC chiefs have shortlisted Atomic Kitten. The BBC haven't mentioned anything on Twitter, Facebook, or the BBC ESC website. So for now, be cautious and watch out for people adding them as "definite" without proper confirmation from the BBC. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

About the map in the venue section....

...is that really needed? I don't think the locations of the formerly considered venues within Baku are critical to the article. Besides, it's only messing with the page format, leaving an awkward space between the two paragraphs. – Kosm1fent 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer... Yes!. If you view the history tab on the article, you'll notice that CT Cooper mentioned back on 27 January, that "Venue: Map must stay for historical reasons, see Eurovision Song Contest 2011#Venue". Wesley☀Mouse 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. But if the text could be wrapped around the map, that would be great. – Kosm1fent 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a way is there? As a similar issue with "large white gap" has also occurred on the venue section for ESC2011. I'm assuming it has something to do with the image being a map, that text cannot be wrapped around it. Wesley☀Mouse 15:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The map itself is set within a table, as it has algorithms and wikilinks to show locations within the map. As this is a table, it would be impossible to make text wrap around it. Wesley☀Mouse 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the map as it is useful given the discussion of other venues in this section and the precedent being set from last year, not to mention that a lot of work went into it. Trouble started when File:Baku Cristall Hall under construction January 2012.jpg was added to the article, as it didn't really fit in, and the user who added it attempted to the delete the map, resulting in me restoring and moving around the image until it fitted in. Although the picture is appreciated, it is non-essential, and really the map should take priority. The image could still be incorporated into a gallery on Commons with it linked from the article using {{Commons}}. CT Cooper · talk 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be safe then to remove the image File:Baku Cristall Hall under construction January 2012.jpg then? We could always re-add it after the contest with other images at the bottom of the article (part of an article image gallery). Wesley☀Mouse 16:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a second thought, and it may be better for the new image of Baku Crystal Hall to removed from this article actually. As Cooper pointed out, it is non-essential, and would benefit more on the Baku Crystal Hall article itself (which it is currently being used anyway). I'm sure once the arena is complete, that an image could be incorporated elsewhere on the article. Any objections from fellow editors on this suggestion? Wesley☀Mouse 18:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely no objection. – Kosm1fent 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the map, so the text (if the table around is removed) now appears to the right. It all depends of the size of the screen you are viewing on (for me it's 1080 so widescreen) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, looks perfect now. – Kosm1fent 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. :) Also I was thinking about cropping the Crystal Hall image, since the subject does seem a little too small, and then upload as a separate image. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Original: Cropped and recoloured:

Looks perfect AxG - well done! Wesley☀Mouse 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. CT Cooper · talk 10:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Romanian selection date

As per Adevarul a trusty Romanian source, the National Final (no semi-finals) in Romania will be held on March 10, 2012 and broadcast by TVR1, TVRi and TVR HD during primetime. Many other reliable sources confirmed the date as March 10th: As per Jurnalul, etc. Can I add the selection date into the main article? Innano1 ^(talk) 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC+2)

Just do it. – Kosm1fent 22:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1. What Kosm1fent said.
2. We also have a reliable source in English now: EscToday. — Andreyyshore (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Romania will select its representative for this year's Eurovision Song Contest on March 10th when a national final will be held in Bucharest. Romania: National final on March 10th Зарицкий Максим (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I was in the middle of adding the details to the table, citing ESCToday's link; and an edit conflict occurred, which caused the table to go weird. But anyhow, I've sorted it now. Wesley☀Mouse 00:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Role of the national host broadcaster

This section is missing the information that İctimai Television has chosen Brainpool to be the Official Production Partner for the contest in Baku. Brainpool was the production partner of German broadcaster NDR also at the Eurovision Song Contest 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.50.92 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Details about Brainpool never appeared on Eurovision Song Contest 2011 article either, so I don't think it is that important to be included into the article. Wesley☀Mouse 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If those 2011 and 2012 co-operations with Brainpool are verifiable by a reliable source, I don't see why they shouldn't be mentioned in both articles. – Kosm1fent 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And they are: [8] – Kosm1fent 17:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That source you've provided Kosmo, would be good for the 2012 article. But it would be better to have a different one, that mentioned the 2011 contest, if we're to include details in the 2011 article. Wesley☀Mouse 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This would be an ideal source to use for the 2011 article. Its from Brainpool themselves. Wesley☀Mouse 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Added short paragraph. Once again and Edit Conflict occurred (I'm seem to be prone to those a lot lately), so I apologise in advance to the editor(s) involved if their input has vanished. Wesley☀Mouse 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The input was mine, but you incorporated the source better, lol. – Kosm1fent 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 17:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Turkey

The citation for language choice regarding to Turkey is very vague. It doesn't specifically say that the song will be performed in 2 languages. All the link states is that 3 songs have been prepared, 2 of which are a combination of English/Turkish and one is completely in English; and that the song decision will be made at the end of February. So in my opinion the link being used is pure speculative and should be removed. However, I would like to see overall views from other editors before a decision to keep/remove the link is finalised. Wesley☀Mouse 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn't keep that speculative-informed fact so you should better remove the languages from the list and re-add them after they elect the song, as normally. If letting English, Turkish, people might believe the selected song would be the one in both languages. An option would be removing the comma in favor of a slash. Innano1 ^(talk) 1:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC+2)

One night-finals

As you already know, Feb. 11 is an important night for all EuroFans because tree national finals will determine this year's entrants for: Moldova, Norway and Iceland. I didn't name the countries in a random order, but the way they're gonna elect their winners. Moldova (UTC+2) is gonna chose 2/3 hours before Norway, leaving Iceland the last somewhere at 0:30/1:00 AM UTC, tomorrow. The question is: Should I add the entrant for Moldova, as neighbouring with them I'll find out who's in for the race with no delays,etc. Secondly and most importantly, should we add the contestants one by one as they are being elected, or refresh the page at once after they are all three announced with reliable external source(s)? Innano1 ^(talk) 2:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC+2)

Wikipedia is not a news site, so information here doesn't have to be quick. However, it has to be verifiable by reliable sources. Add the chosen artists & songs one by one if you wish, but always add the appropriate citations as well. – Kosm1fent 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing them will be a easy, when I do add recent artists and songs, it's on a couple of minutes before eurovision.tv will have reliable source, of which I add straight to the article(s) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Innano1, Hungary (not Moldova) selects its entry on 11 February. — Andreyyshore (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, yes indeed. Well, there is still time though. Innano1 ^(talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC+2)

In my opinion, I don't see anything to panic about here. Have there been incidents of panic in previous years when there have been the so-called "Super Saturday's" and "Super Sunday's", where there have been 5+ national selection finals in one night? If the answer is yes, then I can understand that forward planning would be good. But if the answer is no, then I'd say we just carry on as we have done in previous years. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Super Saturdays" are still yet to come but I just recalled of a situation happening two years ago when 3/4 countries made their choices one night and when trying to edit the page, edit conflicts occurred twice or even three times and it was a total fiasco. Innano1 ^(talk) 12:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC+2)

Edit conflicts are common in an environment like this, especially when there is no way of knowing if one editor is also implementing the exact same edit as another editor. I know I suggested something similar around the semi-final allocation draw. In theory, it is a good idea to keep other members of the project informed to minimise the chances of edit conflicts, but putting theory into practice isn't something that we as a human race, haven't perfected yet LOL. Wesley☀Mouse 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel

Izabo were just chosen to represent Israel. Can anybody update the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.126.18 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Kosm1fent 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hold on -- this ESCToday link says that,

"Tomorrow, the Israeli representative will be announced by IBA and it has been rumored that Maya Buskila will get the ticket to Baku."

Thoughts? I feel a bit uneasy saying what one source says when others say another. It's back to the news.az debate again - didn't that come about as a result of (un)confirmations of countries? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That is an earlier article. This later article by them [9] confirms that Israel made their choice today after all. – Kosm1fent 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Check your links Spa-Franks. ESCToday published this 2 hours ago. Wesley☀Mouse 17:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SF1 Tabulation

Might be just my computer (1024x768) but could someone fix this table as it is all a little bit "squashed". Same goes for some of the 2011 pages (not sure about anything before that) but this is worse. There is some clever formatting thing but I haven't a clue how to do it. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has happened just because the SF allocation map is in the upper right corner, can't you notice? To me, it looks inaccurate as well but this is in conformity with the project's policies. The only think we can do is move the frame with the map a little higher on the Participating countries section, but this just after the section will be (if it will be?) expanded. As far as I know, all previous editions' articles have the same issue as there is not enough space to re-position the frame with the map, and I guess we are OK with it. Thing will surely change after we'll find out the running order and stuff, but yet it is a little earlier to concern about the article's aspect. Innano1 ^(talk) 23:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC+2)

Adding {{Clear}} after the piece of text and before the ==Semi-final 1== heading will force the table under the image. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the SF allocation map would be more beneficial being placed with the section about the SF allocation draw; as the map is related to that section of the article anyway. As for the "Participating countries" section, I don't think that will be getting expanded; as it has already been reduced in size. The previous version of this section incorporated details on withdrawing nations too, which wasn't really relevant to "participation", and thus moved to a new section at the bottom of the article headed "Unsuccessful attempts to participate" as per discussion at Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012/Archive_3#Broken_references_and_other_issues. Wesley☀Mouse 21:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't look right on my computer now, having a huge space above the semi-final one table, which is still squashed compared to the other tables anyway. That image should be moved out if possible. CT Cooper · talk 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it not possible to widen the "country" column span on SF1 table? I noticed that the column span for SF2 table is wider due to Bosnia and Herzegovina; which has more characters than any of the countries listed in SF1 table. Wesley☀Mouse 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes their is a way to force a columns width. 2) What about using {{nowrap}}? I've added them the longest strings on text in its column, please have a look and see if it's any good?-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! AxG, don't know how you do it, but you always come up trumps on solving little issues like this - Top Man!. Wesley☀Mouse 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sabina Babayeva will represent Azerbaijan

She will be representing Azerbaijan in 2012

Reference - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=46133&_t=sabina_babayeva_wins_azerbaijans_ticket_to_baku — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.251.104 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Details where added to the article 10 minutes prior to this request being posted. Wesley☀Mouse 21:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's still not added. --92.10.143.118 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that it is. Spa-Franks added the details on 12 February 2012, at 19:59 (UTC). Have you checked the table which is underneath the header "Finalists" toward the bottom of the article? Wesley☀Mouse 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was there when I refreshed the page. --92.10.143.118 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic language

I'm just wondering about if there is sources wont translate 'Mundu Eftir Mér, cause in the first video here: http://www.escdaily.com/iceland-greta-salome-jonsi-give-winners-interview-to-escdaily/ she says she hasn't decided anygthing yet... Thankful for answer! CoolAbc (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At this current stage, all the available sources mention that the song is in Icelandic, including the video interview with ESCDaily; to which the article reflects these details. If the song does become revised into an English version for the purpose of the contest itself, and reliable sources publish this fact, then we can always alter the article accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a small footnote to the article regarding this matter, in the hope that is assists helps clear up any confusion over language choice at this current stage. Wesley☀Mouse 10:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alyona Lanskaya to represent Belarus

I don't know if it's just my computer but Belarus doesn't seem to be updated yet.

Alyona Lanskaya won Belarus' National Final 'Eurofest'

Reference - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=46223&_t=georgia_national_final_on_february_19th_-_candidates_announced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.251.104 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Belarus is already updated. Refresh your page. – Kosm1fent 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgian National Final to take place on February 19th

Not showing upon my Wikipedia, so posting it here if it needs updating.

Reference - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=46223&_t=georgia_national_final_on_february_19th_-_candidates_announced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.251.104 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It needs updating, and you can do it. I did it for you this time. – Kosm1fent 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kosmo, the article is semi-protected, therefore I don't think an IP can edit the article (only article talk pages), which would explain why this IP user has requested the information on the talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 19:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh geez, totally forgot. – Kosm1fent 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Its easily done. I'm starting to blame the ouzo for any minor errors that I've done LOL. Wesley☀Mouse 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tickets

Eurovision.tv states that tickets will go on sale on February 28th - could some one update the relevant section which still states the tickets would go on sale end of November. cheers (Aaran.Champion (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)).

Should we mention criticism

I was wondering if we should add the latest Human Rights Watch criticism of the Azerbaijani authorities [10] ,[11],[12]. They are apparently evicting people from their homes in favour of the new Eurovision hall.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Coverage of the event should be as broad as possible. – Kosm1fent 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK anyone up to updating this story onto the article?. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems appropriate with that level of coverage, so I've given it a go by adding some content to the venue section using the BBC source. Anyone who wants to make any alterations or additions should feel free - we can discuss them here if there is any disagreement. CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a statement for eviction to keep the article unbiased though. A lot of areas on wikipedia covering politics (in particular, human rights) are biased - the Thatcher article is a good example. So we need a sourced statement from someone like Baku council. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I put in the BBC statement, which as a funder of the contest, as that was the closest thing to an opposing view present. If the government make a statement, then it would be appropriate to mention it, but the BBC reporter tried to get a statement from them and they weren't interested. Ultimately the weight of viewpoints is dictated by WP:UNDUE, and as is stands the coverage is leaning towards a more critical position. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Residence of Baku have not been evicted for the creation of Baku Crystal Hall, the Hall itself is being built on a reclaimed peninsula of land linked to several projects in the baku bay, as such has been relatively unused and never containing housing, this can be confirmed easily by looking at the historic Google Earth Imagery. The areas falsely claimed to be linked to the Baku crystal hall where residents are being forced to leave is in fact an area (whilst in the near vicinity to the west of Flag Square)is linked to a long term project to link the Salyan Highway into the Centre of Baku avoiding a series of narrow avenues as used as present. It is with this in mind that I would be wary of including the information as it links neither to Eurovision directly or the Crystal Hall, it also seems to me that the people have used Eurovision as a reason to give the article more clout, others may have differing opinions on this (Aaran.Champion (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)).

I'm a bit dubious about the inclusion of these details too. There isn't any "solid" proof that the demolition of housing is connected to the construction of the new Crystal Hall. Have we forgotten that the EBU have allegedly warned the BBC for publishing false reports to state that this was the case? I personally don't think it is wise for Wikipedia to get involved in the crossfire row by adding fuel to the fire in this "dispute" between the BBC, EBU, and ÍTV. Wesley☀Mouse 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Solid proof is not needed. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and since a reliable source is reporting such an incident which, according to them, it's connected to Eurovision, it is useful to include in the article. Otherwise, we are not maintaining a neutral point of view. – Kosm1fent 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse the EBU is claiming that BBC is not correct they dont want this forced evictionnews to come out. And I agree with Kosm1fent Wikipedia should always maintain neutral and not join in with censorship or biases by organizations or companies.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

On issues where the facts are disputed, the policy of "verifiability, not truth" comes into play. There are sources clearly reporting a connection between this and the Eurovision venue, so it is appropriate to discuss it in the article. There does seem to be more to this than I previously thought. We could mention this alleged warning letter, though most of the news sources on this I could find were Azerbajani news sites such as this one, and we agreed previously on unrelated issues that they were not reliable. There was one article I found which flatly denies the existence of any warning letter, which although may be unreliable as well, even includes quotes from the EBU. There was also an article from Oikotimes, but this used News.az as a source, and the presumably EBU controlled Eurovision Song Contest page commented saying "This story is indeed incorrect.". If the EBU did issue a warning, surely they would confirm it through a statement like they did with Azerbaijan and the "Interrogation of voters" incident. CT Cooper · talk 15:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I do understand all sides to this, and agree that yes details should be included. However, something doesn't feel right about it at this moment in time. I get the gut feeling of trouble and potential law suits in the long-run. After all, if we're to believe the strictness of Azeri laws, then the last things we'd want to do is put the cat among the pigeons. Wesley☀Mouse 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It may also be interesting to point out regarding the Oikotimes link that Cooper found, that the official ESC facebook page commented on the very article stating that the story is "incorrect". Wesley☀Mouse 15:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, lets not get carried away. Its pure speculations by fans that could very well be Azeris or even government official, that a BBC article is incorrect. And certainly is not a basis to remove sourced information. Wikipedia should not be censored. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of the comment was that the EBU were saying that the story from Oikotimes was incorrect, not the BBC one. CT Cooper · talk 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

@BabbaQ, I'm not getting carried away, I was only stating a personal opinion that I feel that we (as in the 'royal we') could be adding fuel to the fire if we're not cautious as to how we word the details - I am entitled to hold a personal opinion aren't I?
@Cooper; I'm sure I read on another source (Eurovisiontimes I think) that the BBC themselves published a comment about the alleged 'warning letter' being incorrect. If only I could remember which site it was, then I'd be able to add a link on this talk page as a reference. Wesley☀Mouse 17:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, I have never stated that you are not entitled to your opinions so dont put words in my mouth. Thanks. Anyway Wikipedia should not/never take sides in a possible conflict between the EBU and BBC. If we delete the information then we will not remain neutral.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

BabbaQ, you'll find that when I said "I am entitled to hold a personal opinion aren't I" is a rhetorical question, and no words where put into your mouth. Thanks! I reserve judgement on this topic at the moment. I'm not fussed either way what happens (which is what I've said all along), I'm being pessimistic as to what may or may not happen. It is always best to view things from all angles and weigh up the probabilities rather then the possibilities. Wesley☀Mouse 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To conclude on the letter issue, I don't think we should mention it as almost all coverage on the issue is non-reliable and there are no reliable sources which can be used to even verify that such a letter ever existed. As for what will happen, really Wikipedia will just have to deal with when it comes along, and any attempt at a legal case against the BBC shouldn't be of our concern. If a legal case against the Wikimedia Foundation is the issue, then in general (with a few notable exceptions such as WP:BLP), per the spirit of WP:NLT, we should not let legal concerns affect content. Wikipedia servers are hosted in the US anyway, and only US law ultimately matters here. CT Cooper · talk 19:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely covered by CT Cooper, but I have something to add. You must always edit with the most neutral POV in mind, Welsey. By choosing to ignore an event which got considerable media attention and is verifiable by reliable sources, you express a POV biased towards the Azeri goverment, which denies any connection between the evictions and Eurovision (as noted by the Human Rights Watch in their report). Ideally, all sides of the dispute should be presented; however, since Azerbaijan's reply is not covered by a reliable source, as required by WP:V, it should not be mentioned (as rightly CT Cooper said). – Kosm1fent 20:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm Kosmo; from reading what you've written, it looks like you're saying we should add everything, but not add everything - now I'm confused. To keep in-line with NPOV we should include all details - and I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, as we only have reliable sources to show one side, and unreliable sources that show the other side of these allegations, then would we not be teetering into POV territory by only publishing the details that have reliable sources? Wesley☀Mouse 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV commands "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (my bold) If the opposite view is not represented by a reliable source, it should not be mentioned at all. – Kosm1fent 21:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I just said, but worded differently. I think my English grammar is becoming overly comprehensive - I need to stop eating dictionaries as snacks lol. Wesley☀Mouse

You're such a bookworm, haha. – Kosm1fent 21:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I've been playing way too many word games on the Internet; to the point that I use words that people thought never existed. Wesley☀Mouse 21:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the articles about the letter, but I'd like to point that the eviction issue is already being covered in Baku Crystal Hall, so I think we could use that article as a first approximation to what should we include here and how to word it. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The content was copied over on the 17 February, based on the content added to this article first. CT Cooper · talk 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gaitana to represent Ukraine

She will be representing Ukraine in Baku.

Source - http://www.escdaily.com/ukraine-gaitana-to-baku/

La Europa (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nina Badric to sing 'Nebo' for Croatia

She's singing 'Nebo' for Croatia in Baku with her song presentation in 2012 edition of DORA.

Source - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=46803&_t=nina_badric_to_sing_nebo_for_croatia_in_baku

La Europa (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Malware caution reports at ANI and Village Pump (Technical)

There's reports of some malware threats affecting templates as reported at ANI and Village Pump (Technical). Whatever it is causing the problem is directing readers who click on any part of articles (images, links or just the page itself) to a Racist 9/11 Conspiracy website. Please be on guard, and if this, or any other article becomes affected, notify the village pump technical thread. Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 21:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Commentators on the Russian page

The commentators on the Russian page are in that particular page despite them not being sourced in any way, which would rule them out of being in this page without "a special exception" of the sourcing rule. Or we could just remove them from the Russian page but I might get done for vandalism. Thoughts please. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not too sure, definitely needs a {{citation needed}} tag. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the use of an ambersand goes against WP:& and the word "spokespeople" is non-standard, and probably shouldn't be used ... but yet it appears that many "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" pages now have this. By the looks of it, an unregistered user has mass added the content. Per WP:BLP, it is of higher importance that content about living people be sourced. A lot of the commentators and spokespersons content on the "Eurovision Song Contest by year" was only sourced after I made an issue of it, and said it would be deleted unless a better effort was made to source it, particularly after it became apparent that some guess work was occurring. Perhaps this should be repeated for these pages. CT Cooper · talk 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But it says, '&' is perfectly fine to be used for discretion in tables, infoboxes. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But not for headings, which is why I have already changed it for this particular page. I don't think it should be used in tables either without a good reason, but that is even more trivial. I should note that it appears to have been determined on Wiktionary since I made the earlier post that "spokespeople" is too common to be considered non-standard English, but "spokespersons" is still about five times more common and was the standard on Eurovision articles previously. Putting that aside, the far more important issue here is the sourcing, or lack of it. CT Cooper · talk 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the table on the Russian page please. The link for C1R is actually directing to Channel 1 Releasing which is an pornography film studio, and not a Russian television channel. Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 21:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed-up a few errors, but there are still presentation issues. Both "ORT" and "C1R" now go to the same place, which may confuse readers. This is also true of "RTR" and "Russia 1". These abbreviations need to be explained to readers. CT Cooper · talk 21:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coop. And yes I agree, the abbreviations could do with a little explanation for readers who may be a bit "intellectually challenged". Wesley☀Mouse 21:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Belarus 2012 song articles

We have two Belarus song entry articles:

• All My Life (Alyona Lanskaya song)
• We Are the Heroes (title caps seem a little odd - need correction?)

If the latter article is now correct, what should be done with the former. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm good question. Alyona's song 'All My Life' was the Belarus entry before it got 'swapped' in the annual Belarus Euro-Swap contest, and has now become 'We Are The Heroes'. It may be worth rewording the Alyona article to show that it was the original entry before things changed. I'm just watching Austrian NF and Irish NF, and will update the article (and map) as soon as results are known. Wesley☀Mouse 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The first article seems to have been sorted out by another editor, so it is no longer abandoned. For the new entry we briefly ended up with two articles with another one created via a cut-and-paste move to We Are The Heroes. I have reinstated the re-direct to We Are the Heroes, fixed all links on other articles, and notified the user that this is not the correct way to move pages. I have now looked-up WP:ALBUMCAPS, and while it does look a little odd, the current capitalization is apparently correct under Wikipedia's style. CT Cooper · talk 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)