Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Western Europe - ambiguous term, possibly needs removal

"This will also be the first time since 1998 that a country in Western Europe hosts Eurovision as the contest has been in the Middle East, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe since 1999." Well that is pure bullshit. If you're gonna exclude every other Western European country, like Denmark and Sweden, you can just as well type "this is the first time a Western European country that borders France to the west, hosts the Eurovision since 1999." It's stupid. Scandinavia is part of Western Europe, so you cannot write "first time since 1998 a Eurovision has been in Western Europe". - Jetro (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely context dependent, and Scandinavia is deemed Northern Europe as opposed to Western Europe (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/526461/Scandinavia). This makes your point fairly irrelevant as technically it is neither east nor west... steveyeu ../(talk) 00:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Norway is a Western European country (as is everything in Scandinavia). 74.163.28.196 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Read the relevant source I gave in the first instance, although it is very much ambiguous. steveyeu ../(talk) 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are planning on completely rewriting wikipedia's article on Western Europe, and have strong sources explaining why Western Europe should be defined as excluding Scandinavia, I have to say you don't really have much of a case. I agree with Jetro. The sentence in question is simply untrue. Also your source for that claim merely lists the cities/towns that have hosted the contest without mentioning what part of Europe those places are - which suggests to me it would be OR anyway. Elvie (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a not an important thing to point out, so just don't say anything about Western Europe! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite interesting. First time I've ever heard that Northern European countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden can't be part of the Western Europe as well. Oh well, if that's so, it can be also said that for example the United Kingdom isn't either. Here's a reliable source that states that the UK is a Northern European country, not Western European [1] :). ,,n (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Im swedish and i dont see myself as a western european. i see myself as an northern european or scandinavian person.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that there is no clear definition of Western Europe. The National Geographics Society defines Scandinavia, the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula and Italy as being parts of Western Europe. The United Nations Statistics Division, however, doesn't. From a geographical and cultural point of view, I would say that the UNSD definition is the more accurate of the two.--141.35.40.136 (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quatar is planning to enter the Eurovision Song Contest in 2011. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Qatar_Radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.67.2 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Qatar is not a member of the EBU so it would probably not qualify MSalmon (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but they try to become a member of the EBU! They've already send a group to Moskau to represent themselves. Furthermore they also have a radio show which is called Qatar for Eurovision! They just wait to become a member! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.67.2 (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Austria is thinking about of being part of the Song Contest 2011 as well. http://www.krone.at/Show-Stars/Lena-Mania_ohne_Ende-Raab_Lena_soll_Song-Contest-Titel_2011_verteidigen-Story-202468 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.67.2 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkey

So what happens with Turkey?Will they be automatically qualified in next year's final? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the host country is one of the big 4, it is possible that Turkey will be automatically qualified for next year's final, being this year's highest scoring non-big 4 country. However, no reliable information regarding this matter has been published yet. It is also possible that only the big 4 will be automatically qualified next year, meaning that there will be only 24 countries in the final.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question about Turkey. Where has it been stated that Turkey would withdraw from the contest? Some IP user just added that kind of information to the article [2]. Sounds very weird that a country that has been one of the most successful in the Eurovision Song Contest last few years and has just finished second in this year's event (which is a very good achievement) would almost immediately, just few hours after, announce their withdrawal from the next year's contest. ,,n (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are NO current web sources saying that Turkey will withdrawal from the competition. In light of this and coupled with the fact the post made no grammatical sense as it was obviously posted by a non English speaker I have removed that fact from the page as it is at this time, misleading. If the poster wants to repost adding a reliable web source to back up the statement, then that's fine but not until.

4 countries auto qualifying?

it doesnt seem right. based on what i read on wikipedia the 2 place qualifies for next years final if a big 4 country win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, but no reliable information regarding this matter has been published yet.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Netherlands

Why is the Netherlands removed as confirmed contestant? Broadcaster TROS confirmed they want to take part to the contest in 2011 TROS is only thinking about the way the national finals will take place. http://esfmagazine.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/tros-procedure-2011-staat-nog-niet-vast/ (in dutch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane doe10 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Italy

Surely it won't take part to ESC once more. However, if you need a reliable source, here are the words of Mr Svante Stockselius in te press conference of the 26th of May: Every year I think we get a little closer but we're not quite there yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.43.211 (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Andorra

Andorra did not even take part last year , no need for the undecided/withdrawn thing...


I deleted it but got a warning... Lurji (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is sources for this claims then it shouldnt be deleted.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


There was none , and they were already out. Same with HJunfary Lurji (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No there is a source from Esctoday which was published today on the Andorra statement. So no need to delete that.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungary

Why is hungary in the undecided box when it should be in a new possible returns section...? --Lurji (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it hasnt decided 100% yet if it will participate but is ver liikely to. Wait for confirmationof the news before puting it on the article.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of automatically qualified finalists

"Due to Germany's automatic qualification, the next highest country who confirms participation will automatically qualify through to the final." This should be deleted from the article. No official information has been posted regarding the number of automatically qualified finalists in next year's final. The rules of the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest do not take into consideration that the host country could be one of the big 4. Accordingly, it is not known whether there will be 4 or 5 automatically qualified finalists next year.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have revised the statement to reflect the uncertainty. dllu (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Are there really any uncertainties? Sure, Wikipedia editors doesn't seem to know, but I'm pretty sure EBU already knows how to deal with the situation. If I had to guess, though, I'd say that 24 countries in the final, or 11 countries advancing from one of the semi finals seems much more likely than letting the 2nd place from last year get a free pass. TrondM (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The EBU most certainly know how to deal with the situation, but nothing is mentioned in the rules of the Contest, and no official statement has been made. I am also very certain that we will see a 24-country final next year, but that does not qualify as a reliable source.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It won't be 11 from one semifinal as countries in the semifinal that just allow 10 through would all complain, so I would be almost 100% certain that we will have a 24 country final. Nathan | talk 13:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
based on what i read in the rules, the second place will qualify for the final since the first place is a big 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The rules change almost every year, there's no way of telling whether the second place country from this year will automatically make the final. Also no where in the 2010 rules does this matter come up. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

PLEASE Semi Protect this article because of all the vandalism which I am tired of revertingMSalmon (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of which I already added this article before you posted. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks MSalmon (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Lurji (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So I did, someone put Sicily, Jersey an Brittany as posible debuts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane doe10 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sicily ? I have heard nothing about the partecipation at the ESC of the Sicily separately from the Italy. I am a Sicilian fan of the ESC and I am quite sure of it... --62.98.222.52 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely only countries can participate? AnemoneProjectors 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Participation Map

How do I change the map to show the countries that have been confirmed because the current one is wrong. MSalmon (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The map is an SVG, this can be edited with the free Inkscape programme. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried that but it doesn't work MSalmon (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Might be better to explain in detail why it doesn't seem to work? Since it works fine for me. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier for you to do it since it works for you? MSalmon (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
OK then, what's wrong with it? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Greece needs to be added and Portugal removed MSalmon (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
See that's what got me. I always do I quick count on the map and the article, so counted the same but did not know Portugal had been removed and Greece added. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia confirms participation

Eftim Gashtov, CEO of MRTV, the Macedonian state broadcaster has confirmed that the country will take part in next year's Eurovision Song Contest.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.189.15 (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Source: http://www.vest.com.mk/?ItemID=A4FCBF104618114FAC3B38EEFA8CD070. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.123.67 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That site is just telling you about Hamburg and Berlin wanting to host in 2011 and an analysis of 2010. It doesn't say they are entering in 2011.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harkinson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the article, Eftin Gashtov denies the rumours of Macedonia withdrawing from next year's contest, stating that the Macedonian broadcaster will invite representatives from the media to an open debate programme in order to find out which changes could be done to the Macedonian national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Macedonia is on the participant map, but not on the list which means there is no valid source to their participation.--Teodor Hansi (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Austria

Has Austria really confirmed participation in the 2011 edition this early? The source is exactly the same as when they where in the possible returns section.--Teodor Hansi (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

is it certain that they can participate next year. i read on wikipedia that they didnt send this years final.

United Kingdom

the viewers of bbc wants the channel to withdraw. therefore it should be listed under possible withdrawals. http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/melodi_grand_prix/1.7146879 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The viewers do not decide what the BBC does, therefore the UK should not be listed until a reliable source is found. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Qatar?

Is Qatar taking part or not? I only have one source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskolc10 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They most likely wont be a part of next years contest, they are not an EBU member yet, and I am not sure if they can become one either. The only debut we will have is Liechtenstein I think.--Teodor Hansi (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) based on what i read they got their membership early.
Not only are they not EBU members, but they don't have a television broadcaster that will air the contest. The interested party is a radio station. So their participation is impossible at this point.Evilperson 20 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Norway confirmed

norway always participates unless they choose to boycott esc. participation is rather important in norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And? We can't just add it. Anything can happen during now and then, that could force them to pull out. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
norway will participate next year. i am already discussing it on nrks own forum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk • contribs)
Norway can be added once a reliable source confirming participation is presented. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lena to perform (again)

The information that Lena Meyer-Landrut will represent Germany in ESC 2011 should not come under the "Participating countries" sub section "Confirmed" but in the "Returning artists". Source is hereKamalSagraha (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this confirmation. Firstly, is ESC Nation really a reliable source? There are higher standards for content related to living people, so I am taking this out until concerns are resolved per WP:GRAPEVINE. The content also contradicted the Lena Meyer-Landrut article, which have Lena's return to the contest as a maybe, with more established reliable sources treating this more as a possibility. Yes it is clear that Stefan Raab favours this planned return by Lena, but there is no evidence of wider confirmation from the broadcaster; the ESC Nation article seems entirely based on one quote from Stefan Raab. That is not enough to confirm participation. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I opened a Returning Artists section because of the Lena return in 2011 for Germany. SteliosGR(talk) 12:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is confirmed. It is the broadcaster that confirms who goes to Eurovision and they have yet to confirm it.Evilperson 20 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is another source. From ESCDaily.com KamalSagraha (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be based on the same quote from Stefan Raab, not a very solid confirmation. I think we should wait until there is a clear conformation from the broadcaster. In any case, we cannot have this article and the Lena Meyer-Landrut saying different things. On returning articles sections, I think the debate needs to be held on if these sections should be there at all, as they have appeared in articles without any consensus. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
And once again - another instance when Wikipedia has been too hesitant to include news like this because it's come from someone they believe to be less reliable. Stefan Raab isn't just a singer and a TV host - he's a music producer and was heavily involved in the German participation this year. If you actually read the article properly, it says "ARD & ProSieben press conference", which states the news source. How can that not be confirmation from the broadcaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.186.203 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I missed this comment, but I think this needs be said: I don't offer any apologies for maintaining quality standards in Wikipedia articles. Eurovision articles are not exempt from the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, which makes clear that content in articles must be sourced very carefully about living people, and is non-negotiable. In this case the information was right, but there have been too many instances in which Wikipedia Eurovision articles have got it wrong with confirmed participants and confirmed entries. I will warn any editor that adds content to articles about living people which is unsourced or poorly sourced, and administrator tools may be used as a last resort, as WP:GRAPEVINE allows. CT Cooper · talk 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland

Who removes Switzerland all the time? SteliosGR(talk) 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All information on who added and removed content can be found in the edit history. It was this this diff that removed Switzerland. A reason was not given, however the source did not appear to be reliable. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Norway confirms participation

The official Norwegian facebook page (made by NRK, the Norwegian broadcaster) for Eurovision/Melodi Grand Prix, confirmed Norway's participation in 2011. http://www.facebook.com/melodigrandprix?ref=ts In the status posted the 4th of June, it is written in Norwegian that they will start working on the Norwegian national final (Melodi Grand Prix) soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lllkmoup (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.192.50.245, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The United Kingdom will take part from http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/ in a grey box at the top right of the page

80.192.50.245 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Nowhere on there does it say the UK will participate, nor does it even contain the words "United Kingdom" It just says the BBC will air it in 2011. Please provide a source saying the UK will actually participate, not just air it. CTJF83 pride 02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. Didnt mean to offend you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.50.245 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere was I offended, please find a source, and I will gladly add it for you. CTJF83 pride 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please add my source about Norway's participation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lllkmoup (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 Not done facebook is not a valid reference, please find a Reliable Source and I'll add it. CTJF83 pride 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References for countries painted in the map but still not listed

The FYR of Macedonia, the Netherlands and Switzerland have confirmed participation, and they're painted in the map.

The references for each one (to be finally listed) are: 

* The FYR of Macedonia: http://www.vest.com.mk/?ItemID=A4FCBF104618114FAC3B38EEFA8CD070. 
  The last paragraph: Mr. Eftin Gashtov (MRT's directive) denies the rumours of Macedonia withdrawing from next year's contest
* The Netherlands: http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/13036. 
  TROS has a deal until 2012.
* Switzerland: http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8368. 
  SF wants to recover NF.

Please, add these three countries to the list of confirmed countries. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.18.137 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gera

Germany: Gera also wants to host Eurovision 2011 --78.48.40.93 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Update reference from Oikotimes "10 countries..." to "22 countries..."

The reference used for many countries from a list published by Oikotimes was updated recently. Here is: http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8431. Albania is included, so it could be added to the list of countries confirmed for 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.100.119 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Albani, Croatia and Russia

These three are in the confirmed ones list, saying that a citation is needed, but I can't find any reference for their participation until now... We all know that this 3 and many others from 2010 will enter for sure, but if we have restric "laws" for some things... João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Albania: http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8431. Delete the article about Kosovo, because it's false and, as usual, politically biased. EBU stated recently that there are no new applications under consideration, so only current active members would be on time for entering ESC 2011. Reference: http://esckaz.com/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.18.200 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the re-direct on Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest as no new sources were presented indicating that Kosovo's participation in the contest is back on the table. The quality of English in this new article also, I have to say, left a lot to be desired. This article was re-directed as an olive branch compromise despite being kept at AfD, and I don't see any reason to change that at present. The inclusion of content on Kosovo will be decided like any other country in line with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If there are reliable sources that seriously suggest Kosovo will participate for 2011, then such content can be included, and if in response some sources doubt any participation of Kosovo for 2011, they can be included. Any concerns over political bias will be looked at, but such concerns should be accomplished by a clear indication of the offending article text and citations from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy indicating which part of it is being violated . CT Cooper · talk 10:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

either turkey or israel

they are currently in a conflict, therefore either of them may withdraw.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are always in a conflict and they don't withdraw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.220.214 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Why is Liechtenstein removed from the possible débuts section? I have not found any source stating that they wont try to participate next year. --Teodor Hansi (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The EBU have announced they have no new members and won't accept any more until after the contest deadline to confirm participation --Harkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.220.214 (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please write down the source to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teodor Hansi (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian reference

The reference used for confirming Bulgarian participation only told about a possible offering from Kirkorov, but it doesn't mention the intentions of BNT about taking part next year. I recommend to remove it until more solid references (from BNT) would be available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.35.123 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. He seems to have offered his help to the broadcaster, but there has been no official announcement regarding participation by the country and the article states that it is "rumored". In addition, can anyone comment on the reliability of the source? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the reference to Bulgaria in this source cannot really be considered a confirmation. On reliability, well I'm not convinced its reliable either. The website is hosted by WordPress, a free blog/website hosting software, which suggests that the website is either run by one Eurovision fan or a small group of users, which in either case means it is unlikely to pass the standards required by WP:IRS as it appears to be self-published. The same can also be said about ESCDaily (also hosted by WordPress). They certainly would not meet the standards for material related to living people. CT Cooper · talk 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I will remove the information sourced by these unreliable sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:2011 Eurovision Song Contest entries

Should we start a 2011 Eurovision Song Contest entries template? Some countries have alreday announced its national final (f.e Denmark, Ukraine) or changes in their national final (f.e Sweden). I could create it. I just want your view.Redpower94 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If reasonable well sourced entry articles can be made, then I don't see a problem. What should be avoided though is a massive influx of stubs which offer little new information, which may attract AfDs. CT Cooper · talk 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I have re-directed Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 for reasons given in the edit summary. There has already been one AfD at Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011, and more should be avoided. These articles should attempt to meet WP:N on their own, and it those that don't which will attract deletion requests. CT Cooper · talk 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Some advice would be to only make the page if there is more information then just confirmation of entry. "Country will be participating this year" can easily be stated on the ESC 2011 article, there is no need for it to have its own page. If a selection process has been announced and the broadcaster has released more than just basic information about it, then I would say you are safe to create the page. Year after year the stubs that CT Cooper is referring to are deleted or redirected until enough information to warrant a separate page comes about. Don't jump the gun just to make a new page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that summary. CT Cooper · talk 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection

As with every new Eurovision page, there are anonymous IPs adding and removing at will without sourcing. I propose page protection against IPs and editors not autoconfirmed. Welshleprechaun 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want the page to be protected, I would recommend making a request at WP:RFPP. CT Cooper · talk 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

less money in 2011 than in 2010?

i read on a forum hosted by nrk that the german government is cutting the eurovision song contest budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a forum, we can not use it as a source, per WP:SOURCE, since most are unreliable. But most broadcasters, in this current climate want to spend as minimal as possible to stage an event efficiently. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Or else it can lead to Germany's withdrawal in Eurovision 2012, similar to Sweden after hosting Eurovision 1975 --Ajitirj (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

stage of 2011

is there anybody that know anything more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, most details such as stage design, graphics, logo, etc. don't usually appear until January or later. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
do you think they will use any LED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a forum, this talk page is for discussion of the relevant article, to improve the article. Please find and use a dedicated forum on the subject. Thanks. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

is ireland withdrawing?

i checked the german version of wikipedia. there ireland wasnt shown as participating on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is: we don't know as of yet. They have neither confirmed or withdrawn their participation from the contest. This is usual, most countries will be inspecting their budgets, whether they can afford to participate and host a pre-selection show. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Andorra: No return in 2011

ANDORRA: Andorra not coming back in 2011--Redpower94 Could we add that anywhere? (talk) 13:32, 6 Oktober 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the source that Oikotimes used in terms of reliablity, but lots of countries do not return each year (not the same as withdrawal) and they are not mentioned. For instance we don't list all of the countries that are participating and then have a list of countries that could have, but didn't. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamburg didn't withdraw

the given source in German doesn't say that Hamburg has withdrawn - it says only that Hamburg might have no chance anymore due the money and the fact that the stage doesn't fit in the proposed venue only Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know German, but in the translation, it states in the first sentence that it probably won't take place in Hamburg and then in the second sentence it says Hamburg is no longer bidding. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
German is my mother language - in the second sentence stands that "it is said" that Hamburg isn't a frontrunner in the race anymore - the whole article is a kind a speculation and due I know Hamburger Abendblatt quite well, since I live in Hamburg - I have more the impression that the Hamburger Abendblatt wants to "pressure" the Hamburg governement with this article to step in for the financial issues. Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

will Belgium survive long enough to participate

last i heard they didnt have a government. if that keeps up the country could break up before eurovision song contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.205.77 (talk • contribs)

Serbia and Montenegro were both fine when the two broke up in 2006, with them still entering together in some competitions, like that years World Cup. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

the german article confirms slovakia as participating

that means that at least the german wikipedia users believe slovakia to participate. wether it can used i cant tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.74.217 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference points to this article, which clearly states "Slovakia's return to the Eurovision Song Contest in 2011 is currently under consideration by STV". The public poll can't be included as it's up to the broadcaster not the public. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

why is italy listed under semi finalists?

shouldnt it be listed under finalists. i mean if it is a part of a big 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It has not been made clear by the EBU if there will be a big 5, or if Italy will be part of it and qualify directly to the final. The EBU is expected to announce more details at a references meeting later this month. Until then, it should be in the semi-finalist section with the rest of the countries. Greekboy (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
what about adding it to uncertain or something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk)
That is called speculation. As of right now, there is no such thing as a Big Five. The media is talking about it, but that does not mean it will happen. The media talks about tons of stuff. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

will russia become a part of the big countries

i heard a rumor of it on a forum. if it is true russia will most likely qualify for the final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

sweden will most likely sing in english

since they tend to translate their songs into english if they arent already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

norway will sing either on norwegian or english

those are the only languages that norway use in eurovision song contest.(though there is some times words in other languages added into the song.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Logos uploaded to Commons

I have taken note that the Eurovision 2011 logo has been uploaded to Commons on grounds that it is illegible to copyright, rather than here locally as non-free content. This marks a significant change from previous years, and I may ask for input shortly on Commons to determine for sure whether the logo(s) uploaded there are actually illegible for copyright. See Commons:Threshold of originality for more information. CT Cooper · talk 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Which logo? The one with the black background that was added a few minutes ago to the page or the one we had for the past few months? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The one shown here primarily. File:ESC 2011 Germany.svg doesn't matter as it is uploaded locally under fair use. CT Cooper · talk 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've received some feedback at commons:Template talk:PD-textlogo/en#Opinions on Eurovision logos requested and it appears Eurovision logos are okay on Commons. This means from now on logos can simply be uploaded onto Commons, with the benefits of this including that only one upload is needed for all Wikipedia projects, and there are no longer any restrictions on usage from the WP:NFCC. I suggest that the logos be slowly uploaded onto Commons, with the local fair use simply de-linked, which will result in them being tagged by a bot and later deleted. CT Cooper · talk 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

San Marino

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/16324

San Marino has confirmed for participating in 2011. Does not San Marino in the semifinal list of participants are? (My English is not very good, i'm from Holland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthebest (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think San Marino shouldn't be listed as confirmed till a true confirmation from SMRTV is given, till then it should be listed under "Possible returns". Their situation is exactly the same as Montenegro and Hungary, which are listed as so: they have applied, yet it's not clear whether they will participate. Please somebody remove them from the confirmed list, I've tried several times but it's always reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthebest (User talk:Guest) 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.29.51 (talk)

I believe the difference is that Hungary and Montenegro both said they have applied, but aren't sure yet, while San Marino has said they are in, but retain the right to withdraw if necessary. Any country can still withdraw at this point. I don't see San Marino's case as being any different than the other confirmed countries as per the sources used in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, to retain the right to withdraw is as good as not being sure... If that's the case, I think either we list Hungary and Montenegro under the confirmed countries too, or list San Marino as undecided, which I still believe it's the best option. After all it's a same situation as that of 2009: SMRTV originally applied, and then withdrew, and that's more than likely to happen again this year. It's always possible (and better) to add a confirmed country later on that having to remove it from the confirmed list. But alas, do what you may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthebest (User talk:Guest) 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.29.51 (talk)
Yes. I also think San Marino should be removed from the confirmed participant's list. They haven't confirm they're entering. They just applied. Is exactly the same case as Montenegro and Hungary. I know that every country can withdraw before December 25th but is not the case of countries like Sweden or Ukraine whose national finals are underway or Switzerland which has already chosen its entrant. And if we are taking that into account then what... no country should be confirmed? I myself going to take off San Marino from the participants list and place it on the undecided section... I hope we reach a consensus on this matter. Tony0106 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the ESC Today source, San Marino's broadcaster has confirmed participation. The only difference between San Marino and the other confirmed participants is that the broadcaster also stated that it may end up changing its mind before the deadline. This is something that all broadcasters have the right to do. Montenegro and Hungary have not said that they are entering, but have applied leaving the option available if they chose to participate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Grk1011/Stephen I don't wanna sound rude but I'd like you to tell me in which part of the ESCToday article the Sanmarinese broadcaster confirmed their participation? Even the headline says "Will we see San Marino back at the Eurovison Song Contest along with Italy in 2011?" I'm sorry but they are not confirmed. They are in the same situation as Hungary and Montenegro. For instance, Bosnia and Herzegovina is in as it says here or France but San Marino is definitely not. --Tony0106 (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article says that San Marino has applied. Like I just said above, any country can withdraw before the deadline. The question posed by the author which you quote is simply asking the readers if they think San Marino will actually go through with it. Remember that ESC Today and other sites thrive on encouraging discussion of their articles through reader posts below them. As of now we have no reason to think San Marino will not go through with participating. Hungary and Montenegro are different because they sent in their applications, but the broadcasters did so as a precaution to not preclude a participation; they remain undecided, unlike San Marino whose broadcaster said it will participate but retains the right to change its mind. It's a different situation and I struggle to see why you can't understand this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article does not say they confirm their participation. That is what I cannot find the different situation b/w Hungary or Montenegro. That is the point. If you're considering just the fact that any country can withdraw without penalties before Christmas then we should not even have a participants list. But that is not the case. San Marino simply cannot be a confirmed participant because they haven't say they are going to compete. That is why. I think we should vote on this issue. You are actually the only way saying San Marino is in. And I am going to revert it again.--Tony0106 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
First and foremost, remember polling is not a substitute for discussion. That being said, it all comes down to wording from the sources. It seems to me that San Marino has applied and will compete as well, but in comparison the case of Montenegro, the are still on the fence about the contest itself and just applied to reserve their chance to compete. Every single country on the list has the right to withdraw with no penalty until late December. Either way, a consensus needs to be reached on this issue. This edit waring can not go on any longer. Perhaps adding a hidden note in the article directing users to this talk for discussion would help form a consensus? It seems that IP users are also edit waring for this same issue. On a side note, should Hungary even be included in a possible return list? It seems to me the source used is not based on much. From the source: "However, according to our sources, Hungary might be back in Eurovision in Dusseldorf with MTV." What sources? In the case of Montenegro and San Marino, it seems their respective broadcasters officially stated they have applied. Greekboy (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with Greekboy and Grk1011/Stephen. I do agree that the source is rather ambiguous on whether they are confirmed or not, but from I can tell is that if SMRTV told ESCToday explicitally that they had applied it does seem pretty likely that they will participate. From what I can tell about Montenegro and Hungary is that there was probably some probing by news sites to get an answer from them, while San Marino was more open with their answer. Even now ESCToday has reported no news on Hungary, and has paraphrased news from an Montenegrin website about Monetenrgo ([4]). On the other hand news on San Marino has come from SMRTV themselves, so it seems more likely they would compete in Germany. Or, if no concensus is reached, we could just wait until the EBU release the official list of participants in a few weeks time. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

How come Liechtenstein is removed from the possible debuts section? From what I know no decision has been made about their participation yet. --Katching (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein was removed from the list as the country cannot participate as no broadcaster from Liechtenstein is a member of the EBU. 1FLTV applied for EBU membership, but was not accepted. Therefore the country can't take part. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Source on this please.. --Katching (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The source is needed for inclusion, not omission. There are sources stating that the country wants to and could if it gets over such and such hurdles, but as of right now, it is ineligible. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this source should help all those who say Liechtenstein is or isn't debuting in 2011. I had read somewhere months back that the EBU where looking into leaving a "backdoor" open for the nation to debut. But from what this sources briefly shows, the EBU will decide officially at the next Reference Group Meeting. http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8581 80.192.226.205 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's the other link [5] I spoke about above, in which Svante Stockselius has been reported to have said that if Liechtenstein have submitted an application to be full members of the EBU, then a "backdoor" will be left open for the nation to join. Hopefully this now helps provide enough information to clear up the grey area surrounding Liechtenstein's "possible" debut. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing of articles using secondary sources

On a couple of occasions now I've noticed articles are being referenced to their source, but subsequently changed to an esctoday article referencing the original source (example: San Marino confirms participation was written by escdaily.com, and referenced as such, and then changed to an esctoday.com article referencing escdaily.com.) What is the reasoning for this? It seems strange not to reference the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukavsfan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ESCDaily is currently not regarded as a reliable source, while ESCToday is per the last discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles, though there is nothing stopping further discussion on ESCDaily, which has not as far as I know been vetted in depth by Wikipedia editors. Secondary sources are usually preferred over primary sources on Wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY, though this not a primary source vs. secondary source issue with both ESCToday and ESCDaily being secondary sources, which must/should be getting their information from primary sources or other secondary sources, as neither are broadcasters or running the content. A primary source is very close to the issue or event, which for Eurovision would be sources directly from broadcasters or the EBU. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
While I admit that I did not notice that ESC Daily was the source for the ESC Today article, I think this brings up a good question regarding it as a source. ESC Today was found to be reliable as they stated their process for writing stories and detailed how stories are checked before being published. ESC Daily seems new to the game and I couldn't find an "about us" or anything that would allow us to have a better understanding of how the website works. The way I see it right now, ESC Today is preferred because we believe they doubled checked the information before publishing the article and didn't just rewrite the ESC Daily article and publish it. Considering that they are new and seem to be reliable, I would suggest we start a discussion. As they have minimal information on their site, an email request similar to what was done for ESC Today and Oikotimes should be explored. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I take the points above. I just wanted to bring it up as on the last two occasions the source has been changed to ESC Today, although I wrote the original article on ESCDaily on the basis of an e-mail from the broadcaster itself! So it was a little disappointing in that sense. Am more than happy to help 'verify' us, as we weren't online when you made the original last a few years ago- but having said that, have been there since November of last year. --Ukavsfan (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hm. I wish you hadn't said that because of WP:SELFPUBLISH. You really aren't supposed to write articles yourself and then use them as a source. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Honesty is always appreciated, particularly when it involves a potential conflict of interest. Self-publishing is discouraged on Wikipedia, but it is editors just publishing their own opinions so they can add them to articles, effectively getting around WP:NOR, which is most problematic, which is not the case here. However, the issue will have to be taken into account when assessing ESCDaily. CT Cooper · talk 12:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Am afraid you'll probably find a fair few people do that already. However, it's not a case of self-publishing to argue a point, merely having the information at hand from a source (generally the broadcaster itself) and updating the Eurovision page accordingly. I'd argue, though, that there wouldn't be a need to self-publish if ESCDaily was able to be sourced for its own work to begin with.--82.34.72.144 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
That is why enforcement of policies and guidelines on Eurovision articles in regards to sourcing is more tight than used to be. Per WP:V all sources used in articles must be (a) published and (b) reliable. My interpretation of the policy definition of self-publishing is that users making postings on websites based on previously non-published information (including e-mails) is self-publishing, unless there is some kind of editorial oversight before publication (which would remove the "self" from self-publishing). Self-publishing is allowed if the person doing it is considered an expert, and this is generally the only circumstance in which such a source will be considered reliable. The rules on sourcing about living people are more strict (which does/will include some content in this article) - self-published sources may not be used even if the publisher is an expert, per WP:BLPSPS. CT Cooper · talk 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact that a site like oikotimes, which has published more false news than any other Eurovision site over the last few months is regarded as a trustworthy source is ridiculous. Especially if you also condider the horrible use of English. Another thing that surprised me in the past: The Russian confirmation was reported first by the blog EurovisionTimes , then the news was reported by ESCDaily one day later (stating the initial publisher as source) and then ESCToday used ESCDaily as their source. The reference for Russia is now ESCToday. Why can't it be the original publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manialf (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding oikotimes, it is not really considered as a reliable source. If you look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles, there was no consensus reached on oikotimes. As the closing mod said in her summary notes, Contributors should be very cautious if they choose to use this site, particularly as involves biographical material related to living people.....I myself would treat it as a "questionable source." Personally I would only use oikotimes depending on the situation, which is what I noted when I voted it as "Semi-reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing important or controversial statements" in the straw-poll back then. Maybe it is time to re-open the discussion on WP:Eurovision on reliable sources though? It seems a few new sites have been established online since then, while some of the sites in the original discussion seem to have evolved as well. Greekboy (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No one is defending Oikotimes' downward spiral over the past year or so especially. It has definitely published its fair share of rumors and the grammar is horrible on nearly every article. I believe that in our source discussion we found it to be reliable, but to use with caution. It was ok to use it for non controversial sourcing, but discouraged for information that would be difficult to source without Oikotimes. We should have a new discussion, but I am doubtful of the participation as not many of the editors adding these sources are part of the community; most seem to be fly by editors with one purpose. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
While using a good mixture of sources is encouraged, there is no practice on Wikipedia to always use the most original source available, and reliability always takes preference over originality. ESCToday is used because it is believed that they can separate the wheat from the chaff, however other sources may be considered reliable if there is another discussion on the subject. The biggest problem with such discussions is that few people bother to participate, with the general problem on Eurovision articles being many editors but few wishing to communicate or discuss issues. This is why even if Oikotimes is found to be unreliable, stopping its use would be a challenge. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me just point it out that broadcasters CHANGE THEIR MIND. Like Slovakia did on 4 different occasions (confirmed by Anders from eurovision.tv). I can guarantee that not all of you are in contact with the Slovakian broadcaster. There was in fact miscommunication within the broadcaster from their PR to their Eurovision HOD. First said they are out but on December 23rd they decided to stay due to the broadcaster being granted an extension. During this time they changed their minds two more times - you can say that a website is unreliable, but that is not the websites fault if the news changes. This is the same situation as Oikotimes with the Greek National Final list - at the time of publication it is true - but artists withdraw and broadcasters change their minds. You should source the people who work hard to find the information. Thats all I have to say. Thanks and bye. esc4me · talk 22:26, 07 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.85 (talk)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Nobody has said that broadcasters don't change there mind, this has happened many times previously, but there was clear evidence established in the last RfC of Oikotimes getting it wrong, and sources jumping to conclusions too quickly is an issue that has come up repeatedly. There is no interest for Wikipedia to race to be the first to announce something - this is not a news site, nor a Eurovision fansite. There seems to be a misconception on this talk page that sourcing is about giving credit and providing good advertising, and being considered reliable by Wikipedia is about prestige that all sites should aspire to. This is not the case, Wikipedia sources content for verifiability, and reliability is about building a professional encyclopaedia built on fact checking and accuracy in compliance with wider community consensus on how articles should be written, not prestige, particularly given that Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable. Wikipedia may be more cautious than other sites on issues such as sourcing and copyright, but as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. CT Cooper · talk 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is about prestige that all sites should aspire to". Sorry I laughed a lot about that, no serious educational institute accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source at all - so what prestige are you talking about? I can tell you lots of news that esctoday had/has wrong, heres a good one for example where they EVEN sourced themselves: http://esctoday.com/news/read/16377. Now, no Eurovision website is ever 100% correct - in fact eurovision.tv even reported last year that Tarkan will go for Turkey (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=3703&_t=TRT:+Tarkan+not+to+represent+Turkey+in+Oslo) - isn't that unreliable sir? Anyway, it doesn't mean you should disclude a website when they actually get news right. See you in Dusseldorf where we can discuss this further. esc4me · talk 10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.85 (talk)
I don't think I have anything to answer here, given that your quote above clearly quoted my comment out of context; please do not quote mine what other people say here. Doing so will result in a less helpful response from me and others users, and it is considered a form of incivility by the Wikipedia:Civility policy. I actually said: "There seems to be a misconception [emphasis added] on this talk page that sourcing is about giving credit and providing good advertising, and being considered reliable by Wikipedia is about prestige that all sites should aspire to." So I was actually saying the opposite, and note that I did say further on: "This is not the case, Wikipedia sources content for verifiability, and reliability is about building a professional encyclopaedia built on fact checking and accuracy in compliance with wider community consensus on how articles should be written, not prestige, particularly given that Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable [emphasis added]." These comments are based on what has been said on this talk page in the past. I'm not sure what your point "no serious educational institute accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source at all" is supposed to be about exactly, since I pointed out that Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable, so it is hardly news to be me that neither does academic institutions. I'm not planning to go to Dusseldorf, and even I change my mind I'm not meeting up with people I don't know well. Any decisions on sources will be made by Wikipedians, on Wikipedia based on established policies and guidelines. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), this will sign your posts correctly by IP or account name. The account "esc4me" does not exist. CT Cooper · talk 10:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that when a source like ESC Today "sources itself" it means that the site was able to get the information using its resources, such as contacts at the various broadcasters. They don't just "steal" information from whatever articles they can find on the internet. Grk1011 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia

Please refrain from adding Slovakia in the list until their non-withdrawal is secured by a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.15.25 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of Slovakia from the infobox because it broke the referencing elsewhere in the article, also the source given, ESCKaz, is considered less reliable then ESCToday per past consensus in the RfC linked in the above section. If the situation on Slovakia changes, then please update all relevant sections of the article. Though I have to say, the ESCToday article used seemed preety confident that Slovakia is leaving. CT Cooper · talk 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, CT Cooper, I was referring to the list of confirmed countries. I share your point that Slovakia should remain listed as "Withdrawn" till proven wrong. And it's also true what you say about the ESCToday article, however, those are old news and currently it seems that Slovakia is quite likely not to have withdrawn at all. We need to wait till the official confirmation anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.15.25 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Have you thought about making an account to edit? We need more editors who are willing to discuss changes and participate, as you have shown you are capable of. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, on your advice I made an account :) (Nathanvolkov (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC))
Slovakia are confirmed by eurovision.tv so they must be in. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=22833&_t=43+nations+on+2011+participants+list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.220.12 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

the page on slovakia needs improvement

information on its 2011 participation is a bit vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well by all means improve the page ;) Grk1011 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason there is little information on the page is because there is little information to be put on the page so far. STV have released next to no details but once they have released some then it will be put on the page soon after. If you happen to know information that isn't on the page then of course add it, but for now all the information that we can find is on the page. Lukex115 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Slovakia will be not in Eurovision: http://escportal.cz/slovensko-definitivne-rozhodlo-o-neucasti-na-eurovizi/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.188.36 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Web site must be translated! I can't speak Czech! See this page! If this is the old news, cite may deleted! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: No one withdraw from a country after christmas! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How could they have withdrawn after the deadline? --MSalmon (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me ask! Deadline has been expired after the christmas! And Slovakia can not withdraw any more! So remained 43. If you have a question, ask. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct, deadline expired on 25 December 2010 --MSalmon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Now you get it! Block if someone is vandalize! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't block anyone as only admin can do that sorry --MSalmon (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are not administrator, one of admin may block. Don't worry, no one vandalize the page! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

slovakia have withdrawn. i removed it from the list but it is back on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs)

You did not write a reason why, nor gave a valid ref to back it up. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Answer is withdraw/revoked please refrain making unconstructive edits. I'm hoped to return to 2012. And so, you will see the Slovakia map in gray. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
i got the information on slovakias withdrawal from escdaily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs)
ESC Daily is not considered a reliable source, unlike the EBU and ESC Today, of which we have one source from them listing Slovakia as participating. ESC Daily in contradicting the others, of which are more reliable. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well! We see after confirmation from EBU. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmm

In german wikipedia, i see a source like [6]. It seems there are 42 countries if withdraw! Please put this source if withdrawn. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, it is best to wait for a more official source, by the EBU. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A New Source

There is an source which Slovakia withdrawn offically.[7] Thus withdrawn, from ESCToday. Can you put this source? If you say "no" we will wait the next source. It seems, ESCToday related to EBU! It may return to 2012 after this year's absence. Well, at least withdrawn, now that was deadline. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're too late, Hollac16 (talk · contribs) has updated the article. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And why did you say earlier that the other sources were not "reliable" when the ESCToday article shows EXACTLY the same news and quote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.153.204 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
See #Sourcing of articles using secondary sources. CT Cooper · talk 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Then an RfC is in order? -92.8.153.204 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I will try and put one together shortly. CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

DAMN IT! Hey! At least may return in 2012. I'm tired of editing now! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-directed Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 as all the article discussed was the country's decision to (not) participate, which is redundant to this article. Unlike Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, there is not significant selection information worth keeping. CT Cooper · talk 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

big four should be changed into big five

since the big four because the big five the article should say the big five in locations where the big four is listed. i am tired of getting reverted so i wont edit it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It already does. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
the article still lists the big four instead of the big five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are reading the 'Format' section, then you need the read the whole lot to understand:

-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Third RfC on source reliability

I've started another RfC on source reliability due to popular demand on this talk page. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Third RfC on source reliability to comment. CT Cooper · talk 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ added

Given that some topics are coming up on this talk page repeatdly, like last year, I have created an FAQ to answer common questions. Please feel free to make improvements as consensus evolves, or to add further questions/answers as necessary. CT Cooper · talk 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia again

After looked at [8], it still seems Slovakia is still listed under Pot 6, we have still not had an official confirmation from the EBU about Slovakia's withdrawal, so could this be a mistake, or is Slovakia still in the contest? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

EBU have not announced it yet so they must be still in --MSalmon (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The top of the article currently has Slovakia has withdrawn. The bottom half has Slovakia participating. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like funny! That was mistake, or my mind said wrong! What's going on here? EBU confirmed again or not! ):-P 81.215.239.22 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
EBU did not confirmed a withdrawal for Slovakia, it was ESCToday that did it! /Hollac16 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Well. Listed in the pot 6. They cannot withdrawn after all! And real question is who represents for Slovakia? 81.215.239.22 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Belarus rumours in Serbian Press

As this information is unconfirmed by any official source from Belarus, the participant rumoured in Serbian press should not be added to the table. Evilperson 20 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not rumors, but a statement by the song composer to the media so it's a completely legitimate source for Wikipedia. It would have been a rumor if the media wrote how their source is telling them about this or they've heard about it but when a person comes out and says I am a composer of the Belarusian entry for 2011 it's no longer a rumor. The source meets all Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements and if you are trying to remove it from the article without violating rules on blanking sourced information, you will need to provide a source that refutes the claim of the composer. --Avala (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You are citing an article that comes from a Serbian tabloid which is an unreliable source for the information it provides. This information needs to be confirmed on behalf of the broadcaster responsible for selecting the Belorussian participant in the Eurovision Song Contest. There are many instances were media foreign to the country in question report on false Eurovision-related information that is not confirmed and this is no different. Until there is an official statement that this is in fact true from the concerned parties, it can only be considered a rumour. I am not able to refute this source, however, as a tabloid can claim that Belarus is being represented by the President of the United States and this would in fact be untrue unless those parties were to confirm that information. Evilperson 20 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New Source

Hello! I received a source, which says Slovakia decided to compete in EscToday [9]. This source may help to contribute the article! Now rise again to 43! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

10/9, 9/10

Does anyone know why there are 10 countries in the first half of the first semi-final when there are only nine countries in the first half of the second semi-final? /Hollac16 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Because that is the way the draw came out as there are 19 countries in each semi final --MSalmon (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I know it is 19 in each semi-final, but why did they draw 10 countries in the first half of the first semi-final when they draw only nine countries in the first half of the second semi-final? That is my question /Hollac16 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a forum. We can only discuss topics related to improving the article. Grk1011 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not a forum question! It is a thought from me about why they did so. EBU must have an explanation for this and it should be written in the article. /Hollac16 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
19 is not evenly divisible by 2. The draw was done and each country assigned a half of the semi-final. Because of the nature of this process, one half had one more country than the other. This is a trivial fact that does not need an explanation in the article. Grk1011 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Slovenese Maja Keuc will sing in English

Maja told in Slovenese National Final that she will sing her song in English in Düsseldorf. The English song title is "No one". -80.223.140.48 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC) the article on slovenia in the eurovision song contest 2011 say the same thing. perhaps the eurovision song contest 2011 article should be changed.

Here's the confirmation:

http://escdaily.com/articles/15144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.217.240 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Deadline

Hello! I see didn't source given in "Media reports regarding host city" section. Please add more source to help to improve. Template will be deleted after January 27. I'll announce when template is deleted! And refrain to revert template when already deleted! If you have a question, ask me. I'll reply your message! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand a word you're saying. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That means if you not given a correct source in "Media reports regarding host city" section (see "contents" section), I'll delete template in January 27! Understand? 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really no. There is no such thing as a "correct source", we are after "reliable sources". The only template in the "Media reports regarding host city" section is the {{Cleanup|section|date=December 2010}} template, which is due to part of the sentence underneath not making sense. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The Following discussion is closed: I'll delete the template on January 17. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The template shall remain, until someone fixes it. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Slovakia in or out?

OK, I have no idea if  Slovakia is in the Eurovision or not. It's like.....weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roreo123eurovision (talk • contribs)

They first decided not to enter the contest but when faced with paying a quite large fine if not competing they decided to send a entry to the 2011 edition anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Slovakia will compete in 2nd semi-finals. They selects song in the end of January! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't put "The following discussion is closed:", no one has the authority to stop a discussion, it will simply fizzle up and then archived. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fairground"

Why was my edit to "Hamburg/Hanover Exhibition Centre" reverted? As I said in my comment, a fairground is where you go to play on rollercoasters and eat candyfloss with your kids. It's a common mistranslation of "Messe" by Germans who think they can speak English, but it's purely and simply wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.104.196 (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How many places are there?

First it says that there will be 24.000 places. But in the next paragraph there are 32.000 tickets already sold. What's correct? The arena can cover 54.000 places for football or even over 66.000 for a concert but I think that won't help. --MrEnglish (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

information on the stage should be added

it have been added earlier years(2009, 2010 at the very least.) so it should be added this year as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs)

The section will be added, however we don't have any information to put into the section, since the design has not been announced. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The map over the chosen/confirmed countries

I think that there should be a fourth color in the map showing countries that have confirmed participation. Because the green color that shows countries that have chosen artist, song and/or both, it becomes quite messy because some just chosen its artist. Therefore, there should be a fourth color. Then it will be better when you can see:

  1. Confirmed (but not selected artist or song yet)
  2. Countries that have chosen artist or song
  3. Countries that have chosen both artist and song
  4. Countries that will not take part 2011.

/Hollac16 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Article rules.

Hello! Someone's vandalizing the page. This is a list are not permitted to the page:

  • Image removal
  • Language removal (do not delete if language is selected)
  • Unsourced editings

Look these. Also my computer automaticly closes when too hanging out in Internet. 78.166.237.96 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

About languages

Well I have removed the following languages from the selected songs:

  • English from United Kingdom's "I Can" it is very likely the song will be performed in English but we don't know if it might just have lines in other languages or whatever. It just should not be there
  • Spanish from Spain: It is also very likely the song will be performed in Spanish but just like the UK we don't know if it might have lines in other languges (i.e. Spain in 2009 and 2007). The listed source did not mention any language rule/restriction/preference
  • Portuguese from Portugal: The listed source did not specify in which language the song will be presented. We don't even know the participants for the national selection.

I also have one question. Are we going to keep the source for the languages. Or can we just removed once a song is selected just like we use to do before 2010? I don't they are necessary once the song is selected. Other than that the artist name, songtitle, and even placement could be sourced. And like I said, we don't really need them

Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Once everything is chosen and we have a main EBU source, the only thing that should be individually sourced in the table are disputed or controversial facts only. (Like some disputed languages) So to answer you question, yes, most of the sources in the table now will be removed as in previous years eventually. Greekboy (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Tony, what you did to the German and Italian spaces in the chart is ridiculous. All the songs in the German national final are sung and English and are not going to be translated. Why should we translate English lyrics into German? It just doesn't make sense, especially since Lena refuses to sing German songs! Contrary to that, the Italians are definitely not going to translate their pure Italian language songs into English. That would hurt their pride because the whole point of Sanremo is that the songs have to be sung entirely in Italian. You're just nitpicking. --ChrisHamburg (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of Haba Haba (title of the Norwegian song entry)

I see there are a lot of "arguing" of what the meaning of the words "haba haba" are, and the reason for that is because a couple of (fairly big) newspapers in Norway have translated the *whole proverb* "haba [na] haba hujaza kibaba" (which is sung in the refrain of the song) into what it could mean figuratively. (F.ex.: http://www.tv2.no/gmn/stella-mwangi-man-blir-i-bedre-humoer-av-aa-vrikke-paa-hoftene-3411590.html, http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/01/29/kjendis/mgp/melodi_grand_prix/eurovision_song_contest/eurovision/15245203/)

One of the problems with this is that only the first words of the proverb is used in the title. In my opinion the figurative meaning should then not be applied, and neither does it match when you chop the sentence up into pieces. So using various Swahili-English translators (if those can be trusted more than the (smaller) newspapers that have a proper translation) the meaning of the single word "haba" is "little (quantity); little bit; few; slight; insignificant; scarce; in short supply; insufficient" or "scarce, rare, spare, few, scant; insignificant". Or in short, f.ex. what is actually sung at the end of the song itself "little [by] little [fills up the measure]". (http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article513987.ece, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Swahili_proverbs#H, http://www.kamusiproject.org/en/lookup/sw?Word=haba, http://africanlanguages.com/swahili/) --Laniala (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Haba Haba" has no meaning at all. Translating it would be like translating "yeah yeah" into "oui oui". --JustEase (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And what exactly would be wrong with translating "yeah" into "oui" if your goal was to translate from English to French? Neither "Haba haba", "yeah yeah" nor "oui oui" have a meaning in the Norwegian language. However, they all do have a meaning in their respective languages, Swahili, English and French. So it is quite a claim to say that "haba" does not have a meaning at all. --Laniala (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2011/Archive_1&oldid=1136280559"