Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Greenland and Faeroe Islands

Fixed, the user is also adamant that Greenland and the Faroes be included with Denmark. I'm not clued up on this but I know Greenland and the Faroes are not even in the EU so are different to Denmark in a way, but still part of the Kingdom of Denmark. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Kirilloparma (talk · contribs) reverted Hansbaer's edits and listed them as vandalism despite the fact Hansbaer had been advised by myself to make those edits. I have posted a polite notice to Kirilloparma about this, and advised s/he apologise to Hansbaer for casting such a serious accusation. Wesley♦^Mouse 22:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Greenland and Faeroe Islands - they are like colonies to Denmark, but hold national independent in their own right. Similar to Australia being part of the British Commonwealth, yet Australia is an independent nation even though they have the same Queen as Britain. Wesley♦^Mouse 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acting on my behalf there. I am very well aware of Greenland's status, and I have to say the comparison to Australia is flawed. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are autonomous, but are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Their status is more similar to the British territories in the Carribean. Australia however is clearly an independent country with embassies, UN membership etc. It is more than doubtful that Greenland would be able to take part separately if they had their own EBU member - there is no such precedent. My main argument about the coloring is simply that it has to be consistent. The Faroe Islands are clearly marked purple, Greenland is not. Yet their status is practically identical. That doesn't make any sense. --Hansbaer (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Faeroe Islands are not marked purple on the map. The Shetland Isles (part of the United Kingdom) are purple, and the island shape of the Shetlands is rather similar to the Faeroe's so I could understand if you're getting them mixed up. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not mixed them up. If you look closely you see that to the northwest of the Shetlands there are some tiny dots, small but visible in the PNG converted maps. These are the Faroe Islands, and they are marked purple. I know they are only tiny spots on this huge map, but if they are marked on the map they should be marked correctly and consistently. In this whole discussion I find the whole map layout a bit doubtful. The main island of the Åland Islands - another relevant territory in this whole discussion - is about the same size as the main island of the Shetlands. While the Shetlands are clearly visible, the Åland islands are omitted. --Hansbaer (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean the Orkney Isles then. Check your geography. I have looked at the same map and the Faeroe Isles are grey on the map - which is evident in the fact AxG stated on the edit summary that he changed them back to grey. From the way you are coming across here, you are being a little bit picky and trivial over political status of islands. Best to just drop it and move on. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The maps are not PNG, they are SVG (vector) images. If you have inkscape, you will be able to zoom in and notice the Faeroe's are grey. Cheers! Wesley♦^Mouse 12:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect: I know where the Faroe islands are and I know how to check the color of objects in Inkscape. And they are not grey, simply for the reason that the object containing Denmark also contains the Faroe islands. This is an excerpt of the map: [1]. Maybe you believe me now. I believe Wikipedia is the place where those with the better arguments prevail. All those who made Greenland a different color than Denmark have not even bothered to present any arguments. I am searching a consensus, nobody reacts, I make the change, and now I'm suddenly the bad and picky guy? Greenland is the largest island on the planet, larger than any country on the continent, and not just a picky detail. This is ridiculous. --Hansbaer (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that you remain civil at all times, as the tone you have used is very obnoxious, not just towards myself but in the fact you have attacked other editors in general. Your tone in the comment "Maybe you believe me now. I believe Wikipedia is the place where those with the better arguments prevail" proves that it is a patronising tone being cast at editors in general. Anyhow back to the civil discussion. The image link you have provided even shows Faeroe Islands as grey in colour. Greenland are grey on the map, as that is an overwhelming consensus that dates back longer than I have been a member of Wikipedia. When you changed the colour for Greenland you deviated away from a project consensus, and that was pointed out to you by AxG above and in his edit summary for the map image. The map is not suppose to be 100% exact detailed to the finest dot. You only need to look at Greece on the map to notice that not all of their islands appear on the map just the largest and more prominent islands. If we were to place every minor detail then the map would consist of pixellated dots for each of the Greek islands that would be smaller than a grain of sand. At times we have to be simplistic rather than realistic. As I have said, the map is in vector (SVG) format so it is by far easier to simplify things rather than complicate them. If you cannot accept that then it would be best that you just back away and we just agree to disagree. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I am getting a bit upset here, and sorry if I step over a line - that was not my intention, but it is frustrating and not very nice either to question my knowledge of the location of the Faroe islands repeatedly. I hope I have shown convincingly that I actually know where the Faroe islands are, and I can assure that the respective object is purple in color, as you can check easily with Inkscape, or - if I may - in this zoom-in of the map I presented earlier: [2]. The Faroe islands are in the SVG, as I said, part of the object which contains Denmark and are consequently of the same color. The Faroe islands are indeed a detail in the overall map. It is self-evident that the map has to be simplified for the purposes here, and I agree on that. Many smaller territories are consequently not shown, but those which are should be attributed correctly, right? The map template was created in March 2012, and it does not include any hint of a previous consensus. I could not find any conclusive discussion on the topic on the ESC talk page either. I just feel not treated fairly in that issue as I have put the map coloring issue on the respective Commons talk page and there was no reaction at all. I have brought my arguments forward on the Commons page, and if the reaction to that is that I am beaten down by counter-edits without any given reason, it is disappointing. --Hansbaer (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should say again quickly: any consistent solution would be fine with me. I could also split the Faroe island vectors from Denmark and mark both Greenland and them grey. Then it would be consistent and the impact on the overall look of the map would be minimal. --Hansbaer (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You've raised quite a few points there, some correct and some incorrect, so please bear with me while I try and cover them and point out the areas which you correctly identified and the ones you have misunderstood.

• I have never questioned your knowledge of the location of the Faeroe Islands - I have merely trying to clarify if you had correctly identified their location. However each time you described their directional location, the directions did not appear to collaborate with where they actually are, although you did correctly point them out in the map diagram.
• Why the Faeroe Islands have been attached to Denmark is beyond my knowledge, and something that would need to be looked into and corrected accordingly. I'm sure AxG wouldn't mind fixing that, as he is pretty good on that side of things, and I trust his ability in fixing such issues - when he has a spare moment of course. Just don't do it yourself, just in case your actions upset others, as the template is used by many editors on other Wiki-languages too not just this one. Plus several editors have saved a copy of the map onto their own computer's.
• You state the map image was created in March 2012. You have actually got that incorrect. Even though the 2013 map was created in March 2012, the map itself is a generic template that is used every year since God knows when. Its just a case of updating the map each year and saving it under a new yearly name and uploading when the time is appropriate.
• A consensus doesn't necessarily have to appear on every talk page either. Consensuses that will cover a particular topic in a wider prospective will be discussed via the ProjectEurovision talk page - bearing in mind older discussions get archived after a period of time, so you may need to search those too, to find the actual consensus that was reach regarding maps.
• Also it should be worth noting that not every member of this project watches the talk pages at commons. Wikipedia and Commons are separate places. You'd have to log into here to check Wikipedia watchlists, and log into a commons account separately to view the watchlist there. Can't do both in one place. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a small note, the Faroes were indeed purple, which is something I just noticed after I edited. Also the UK and Australia thing is certainly not the same as Greenland and Denmark.  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG don't shoot me down over the UK/Australia thing. I was using that to try and explain the colonies/kingdom thing. UK/Australia was the only two that sprung to mind at the time. What I was trying to state was Denmark/Greenland is like UK/Commonwealth States (formerly British Empire). To put it bluntly, Greenland is an autonomous country of the Kingdom of Denmark - basically Greenland is a Danish colony. Just like Australia used to be a colony of Britain (British Empire), but Australia then became independent but is still part of the Commonwealth Realm (aka British Empire) as they share the same monarchy. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy that we agree at least on the geography and the color of the islands :-) I hope you understand my view on the whole thing. I am aware of the problem that Commons talk pages are hardly watched at all. Therefore I remarked in the comments of my edits that I had written something on the talk page. I considered that enough to explain myself (and wouldn't have known how to do it otherwise), and that's what made the whole reaction to it so upsetting. Anyhow, enough about my sentiments. As a seasoned German wikipedian I am also aware that it is hard to keep track of the enormous body of consensuses reached in the last decade. And from the same background I have to remark that the English Wikipedia consensus on something can't be imperative for the Commons. After searching through the WikiProject archives I could only find a quite recent section on it (here), which is rather Q&A where you responded to a request. As I said, consistency is my primary objective, and after thinking about it so extensively here, I think it may also serve the Greenlanders and Faroe Islanders best if they are considered not part of Denmark in that matter. The splitting of the Faroe Islands-Denmark object would be the simplest solution which would probably make everyone happy. I know how to do it, but I am not an Inkscape guru and would be happy if AxG could take care of that in the two maps. And as an extra I won't question the color of the Isle of Man :-) --Hansbaer (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Isle of Man statement is a bit tongue in cheek ain't it? Isle of Man is a Crown dependency and part of the UK, even if they do have their own regional laws. If we're to be that picky, then we could question Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales being coloured then. They have their own regional assemblies and laws. But yet they are still a part of the United Kingdom. In regards to the link you found in the talk archives - I fail to see what that has to do this this? That discussion was from an editor asking why Greenland had been coloured in; the thread had nothing to do with the entire map alone, and that is what you were suppose to be looking for. You know what, I've had enough of it. Get from under my skin and find someone else to annoy. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth - I have contributed quite a lot here. I helped to improve the article layout etc for this project, which proved to work in the fact Eurovision Song Contest 2012 gained the project its first GA-class article in a "by year" article. And now some random so-and-so comes along and starts to question my judgement!!! Shows where loyalties are dunnit. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I am sorry that you are annoyed, but now you are not being fair. The smilie indicated that I was not serious. I do neither diminish your contribution to the article here nor do I question your judgment. I admire your commitment to these topics. I have my own dear articles and understand that one doesn't want to be doubted in such issues. I have taken the blame for any missteps here, but if a tongue in cheek comment lets you lose the civility you earlier demanded from me, I won't take the blame for that. The discussion I pointed out was the only related to the topic discussed here, but as I also pointed out not the thing I looked for. That's all I said and all I meant. --Hansbaer (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we have Jamaica and several other colonies of the UK mentioned in the UK article too then. This is ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make BabbaQ, but it seems my point gets missed everytime and my words twisted around (nowt new there eh!). If we're going to start colouring maps to include all of Denmark's colonies, then we'd end up colouring a map with all of France's colonies, Dutch colonies, British colonies... the list would be endless. A line has to be drawn somewhere before we get into ridiculous territory. That is what I've tried to say all along even in my comparison (even if that has confused some too). The reason Isle of Man (and the Channel Isles) gets coloured as part of the UK is because 90% of the world's population associates them as being part of the UK, even the majority of the British recognize them as being UK, even if they are technically Crown Dependencies. But people don't realise that Greenland and Faeroe Islands are colonies of Denmark. You ask anyone in the world and they'd probably say they are independent nations. So if its common knowledge to some then why confuse matters by saying "we should colour Greenland and Faeroe Islands" or "we shouldn't colour Isle of Man". Stick with what people know, not with what they are unfamiliar with. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration Wesley! I think simply ignoring this discussion and let it die out is the best way to handle it. It is a non-discussion in my opinion. The countries themselves are the entrants not Greenland for Denmark or Jamaica for the UK.... this discussion ends here. Cheers--BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's coincidently the point I'm trying to make. Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere. I don't care about all the former colonies which are not on the map and never said they should be in there. It just happens to be the fact that these two Danish territories with virtually identical political status are so close to Europe that they are visible on the map. One of them is treated differently than the other on the map, and I think that is wrong. It wouldn't complicate the map nor would it require any extension of it. All that is needed is the separation of the Faroe Islands in the SVG and an agreement on which color both Greenland and the Faroe Islands should have. If that color is grey, that is fine with me. --Hansbaer (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the Faroes and Greenland are parts of Denmark, and ideally they should bear the same color. Similarly with France and its overseas territories, and Portugal with Azores and Madeira (see the Euro bank notes). But in reality, such maps would be overly complicated for the purpose they serve, and that's why no dependency/colony is shown. On the other hand, linking the Faroes with Denmark, while not doing the same with Greenland is wrong, since their status is exactly the same – overall, the current status of the map would work perfectly if the Azores and Madeira were taken out (which are weirdly colored purple while Portugal isn't). – Kosm1fent 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm > Canary Islands. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the split AxG. I have done the same for the participant map. Issue solved from my point of view. --Hansbaer (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

*bad pokerface* Sorry AxG. :P – Kosm1fent 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss: Are France, Romania, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey actually confirmed?

Hello everybody... I really didn't want to mess with the confirmed countries because of the fighting that arose last year. But I've just read this article on ESCToday.com 29 countries reveal intention for 2013 that idenitifies the countries whom broadcasters have confirmed their intention to participate. As you can see only 29 countries have so far expressed their interest in Eurovision 2013 and the following countries (confirmed in this article) had not been verified: France, Romania, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey so I checked their sources and this is what I've found:

• France: the article does not says that France 3 is confirming their participation in 2013 it simply suggest that France should not stop participating.
• Romania: As the ESCToday.com article reads it's not been confirmed by TVR (the participating broadcaster).
• Serbia: It comes from a fan website and does not cite a source so I think it should be removed inmediately.
• Spain: The article dates back from a week before the 2012 contest was held (16 May) hence it can be regarded as outdated and can not technically confirm a future Spanish participation but it only says that TVE (the participating broadcaster) does not plan to abandon the contest.
• Poland, Slovenia and Turkey: Could not confirm this since the articles are in Dutch and Turkish and I can't understand a word however I can see they come from Fan websites.

So I suggest that all these countries should be removed from the participating lists. In the case of France, Romania and Spain, as well as Poland with their old source, maybe we can use these references and place them in the "Other countries" list since they have yet to confirm participation by their broadcasters.

I won't touch anyhting until any of you guys respond my issue. Best regards. --Tony0106 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh we're not going down this road again are we? Didn't we exhaust this scenario 12 months ago? Sure ESCToday state 29, but if we use them as majority source, then we might as well rename this website to ESCTodaypedia. C'mon be realistic, and face facts that some sites publish information that others may not be aware of yet. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the issues are a cause for concern, at least at face value; I will review the sources in detail when I have a spare moment. That said, since consensus was never established for stricter requirements on confirmation, the default policy based requirements still apply as far as I'm aware, these being: i) source clearly states without inference what we are claiming it says, and ii} source meets the project's standards of reliability. Sources do not need to cite sources themselves, although it is helpful, they do not need to direct from the broadcaster, and while many fansites/blogs are unreliable, there are exceptions. In any cases, I do welcome and appreciate the decision to bring this to the talk page first given past controversy in this area. CT Cooper · talk 22:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cooper, I've looked into those sources a few times in the past. Bear with me, as their contents do show signs of confirmation.

In regards to France. Partway down the linked article is a section headed "Les meilleures audiences de France 3" (Best audiences France 3). In that a spokesperson for France 3 informs that "Nous ne quitterons pas l'Eurovision, et cela pour deux raisons, d'abord la France est membre fondateur de l'UER" (translated as "We will not leave Eurovision, and this for two reasons, first to France is a founding member of the EBU"). So if they state they will not leave, then it is safe to conclude that they won't be withdrawing in 2013 - and thus be present.

In regards to Spain. The link for Spain does contain a quotation from Federico Llanos at TVE, which states Spain won't leave the Eurovision, as they like the fact they are part of the Big Five and automatically qualify to the finals. Although reading between the lines, it does seem to imply that if Spain lost its Big Five status, that they would possibly rethink their Eurovision plans. And what are the chances of the EBU expelling Spain as a member of the Big Five? Highly unlikely!

The source for Serbia isn't a fansite, it has been proven to be reliable in the past. So on what ground would we be doing a U-turn on that reliability?

The newspaper article for Romania confirms that TVR informed them, and even ESCToday acknowledge this. But for whatever reasons TVR haven't got back in contact with ESCToday. And unless you or anyone else knows why TVR have decided not to keep ESCToday informed, then who are we to ignore a tertiary source such as a Romanian newspaper.

The Dutch source for Slovenia, informs that RTVSLO have decided to go back to their previous method of national selection (EMA) to find their representative for 2013, instead of the one used in 2012 'Misija Eurovizija', which RTVSLO state was a "flop".

The article for Poland states they got sourced information from another site escsweden.com. Although I cannot find any sources on that website, so it may be worthwhile placing Poland back into the "Other countries" section. And this has actually been raised on WT:ESC rather than on here.

The source for Turkey reads that TRT Eurovision organisers will be consulting with artists at an Advisory Board to be held on 2 November 2012. Among the artists been named are Tarkan, Sezen Aksu, and Sertab Erener. Wesley♦^Mouse 22:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Spain. The broadcaster's Eurovision site (http://www.rtve.es/television/eurovision/) is updated with Malmö 2013 references. The site's banner has the Eurovision logo reading Malmö 2013 with the Spanish flag infill and on its right the contest dates with the main channel's logo below. The site also has a section about the city of Malmö. TVE's official Eurovision Facebook ((http://www.facebook.com/eurovision) and Twitter (https://ja.twitter.com/eurovision_tve) are also updated in similar fashion. Xelaxa (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem with you Wesley. You're the king of the Eurovision articles you simply won't accept any suggestions and you're always right. I don't even know what's the point of having other people in the Eurovision Project? You should ask for everyone to just withdraw their names from the project and you should be the only one updating all of Eurovision articles. For instance, I've never liked the source from Serbia but I didn't want to discuss anything because I didn't have any strict proof that the source might not be reliable (other than they are the only website confirming Serbia's participation in Eurovision and I think those are things that you should look at regarding a source) that's why I started the discussion when I saw the ESCToday.com article but you just won't take other people's opinion. Is what you believe and that's it. Your argument is always the same "we cannot use ESCToday as the primary source for everything, those sources had been used in the past, we don't have to discuss this again...) And then you contradict yourself you kept Serbia as a confirmed participant but you took Poland off... You just don't want to discuss. Look at user Xelaxa instead. Xelaxa gave us other arguments and sources that would confirm the participation for Spain and that was valid. But you, my friend, the only thing you do is attack me. --Tony0106 (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black Tony! You just accused me of attacking you, yet you commit the same offence in your entire statement just then. I never attacked you, I merely looked at the sources and provided my opinion on them. Isn't the whole point of this talk page to discuss and share views and opinions. So now you are basically implying that my right to express an opinion is invalid just on a whim? Every time I have expressed an opinion, you have barged back at me by personalised name calling and vile insults. So who is the one casting the attacks first? What you are forgetting here Tony is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, we are all volunteers here and the primary aim is to provide encyclopaedic material for everyone including the unfamiliar person to a topic. If we just provided content from the same sources, then we'd be turning ourselves into a fansite, not an encyclopaedia. What is so hard to grasp there? In your opening statement you listed some countries and questioned their sources. I provided my opinion of those sources based on what they stated. Sure ESCToday have 29 on their list, but they are a secondary source. Other sources have confirmed countries that are not on ESCToday's list, yet they too are secondary sources and are just as valid as the ESCToday one. At times I start to wonder if you have shares in ESCToday.com, considering you always throw your rattle out the cage everytime a different source is used to verify something. And you have the audacity to say that I don't want to discuss things? Err hello! Isn't posting comments on a talk page actively discussing? HAHA, you make me laugh sometimes, you know that! Wesley♦^Mouse 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We're beginning to deviate away from discussing the sources to discussing each other, which I would like to avoid. Anyway, I think there is an emerging consensus that Poland is not confirmed, and I agree with leaving it in other countries for now. The existing sources state that Poland will decide in October so the issue should resolve itself soon anyway. I don't recall the discussion on the Serbian source, and after looking at it, it doesn't particularity strike me as reliable, although I remain open minded. In any case, I don't think relying entirely on one source is ever a good idea, and if other sources list countries which are not on ESCToday's list, then that doesn't automatically make them wrong - as alluded to earlier, ESCToday may just not have gotten the memo. If ESCToday explicitly stated that some countries were not confirmed, then things would get a little more complicated. In such an event, either the contradiction would have to be noted in the article and/or the more reliable source would have to take precedence. CT Cooper · talk 15:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be appreciative if Tony kindly retracted some of the personalised and hurtful remarks that he cast against me. This is an open discussion where everyone is welcome to share their opinions on the topic it is relating too. If an editor starts to go down the path of trying to deny someone the right to express an opinion by casting derogatory and spiteful comments, then how can a fair and open discussion that has differences of opinions ever be held. What really worries me is that I have been accused by Tony on another talk page for my reading capability, or lack of it. Yet the user has demonstrated their own accusation upon himself.

"contradict yourself you kept Serbia as a confirmed participant but you took Poland off"

The source for Serbia belonging to a site called Eurovision-contest.eu does not mention Poland within it. It is eurosong.be that mention Poland as confirmed, and from the content on eurosong.be website they references another site as verification of their information, yet that other site didn't even contain anything whatsoever. How have I contradicted myself there? Wesley♦^Mouse 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No man... forget about it... I will not retract from anything, not to you. I'm simply going to stop at contributing to any Eurovision article. Man you don't discuss anything, responding a message is the same thing as discussing a topic, I wanted 4 or 5 people discussing the sources not only you saying "We have used that same source in the past, so why shouldn't we use this time" that's been your argument for a like a year now. I said you contradicted yourself because both Eurovision-contest.eu and Eurosong.be are in that famous appearently list of "reliable" sources according to eurovision.tv. So what would make eurovision-contest.eu more reliable than eurosong.be because we have use them in the past and other eurovision articles??? Anyway I'm outta here don't bother to respond, Wesley. --Tony0106 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's your choice Tony, and I cannot force you to change it whatsoever. It is clear that you are just as passionate about Eurovision as I am. But what you may be forgetting or not aware is that we are suppose to be providing details to the non-Eurovision fan, those who wouldn't know what the contest is if it slapped them in the face and waved a neon sign screaming "hallelujah". It is known that some countries view Eurovision as a piss-take. Even on Wikipedia, I have witnessed people from other project look at members of this very project and make a mockery out of us all. That attitude and perspective about us all needs to change and fast! And only we can change it, even if it means being as brutal in what we do. Look at the old RfC over Contest by Year layouts. I listened to everyone's views, some were even better than what I had suggested, and I welcomed that with open arms. But at the end of the day, we all pulled together to come up with a new structural layout that is well documented for the Eurovision fan and non-Eurovision fans alike. You only need to look at the 2012 article and the GA it achieved to notice that. The attitude that you come out with at times is like a bull in a china shop, and is most unhelpful at times if I have to be truthful. I have expressed opinions on a variety of issues in a realistic manner - as it is always best to view things realistically and not fictionally. You too have also expressed opinions, and I have read them all with interest. Some I have agreed with, some I have not - the ones I haven't agreed with, is purely for the fact that they don't come across as practical or realistic enough. OK I may be harsh with how I address certain issues, but that is my nature, and you cannot force me to change that - its what makes me, me. This past 12 months has been a hellish experience for me, both in real-life and on Wikipedia too. You may not be aware Tony, but my mother passed away a few months ago, and I'm still grieving from that. And at the same time had to cope with nearly 3 months of volunteering work at London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic games. During my time there I had my eyes opened wide to new things, which changed my view on life. What you need to understand is that everyone is entitled to express an opinion, even if you personally disagree with it. You cannot just tell someone in a roundabout way to "shut up, I don't like what you have to say". Just calm down for crying out loud, and start behaving in a more realistic manner and not a selfish one. That is all I've to say on that now Tony, and I sincerely hope you take something positive from it. Wesley♦^Mouse 00:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No man you wasted your time... You're accusing me of not accepting other's opinion but is actually the other way around. You don't accept (not other's) but MY OPINIONS... You have something against me that's why you don't discuss with me and you simply object everything I say. --Tony0106 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, tell me we're not going down this alley again already. I'm kinda puzzled, I have to admit, that last year the problem with Tony was that he insisted on used sources that most people considered unreliable, and this year it's that (at least that's what I understood) he objects the reliability of the sources used. I know we didn't establish a set of strict criteria to consider a country as a confirmed entrant, but we went up and down about the reliability of sources in the talk page of last year's contest. Would it be useful to go back and look what we all said on the subject, and then come back and see what parts of it apply here? I think it would help clarify things.

By the way, welcome back, Tony. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No man, last year we didn't come out with anything I simply stopped working on any eurovision article. And you're mistaking me with Wesley. Last year I was encouraging people not to use escnews.az (a source that confirmed Morocco and Czech Republic as participants) but Wesley insisted that I didn't have enough proof to determine that escnews.az was an unreliable source. I assume that you guys simply took off Morocco and Czech Republic when the EBU participant's list came out. I honestly didn't check the Eurovision 2012 article until the day of the semifinal, so I don't know what happened before that. But you're right about this year I'm objecting the reliabilty of the sources used but since Wesley simply came out and said we have used those sources in the past so there is no problem (hence there is no discussion) I just have to shut my mouth up. Look how he completely ignored my question on how eurovision-contest.eu is more reliable than eurosong.be to simply talk about his private life. I might wonder why... Anyways no problem I won't work anymore in an Eurovision article. I'm on my way now to take off my name from the Eurovision Project. --Tony0106 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony, are you really that blind? You say that I am not discussing anything with you, the fact I am engaged in this discussion proves that I am discussing with issue with you. It isn't a case of I don't accept your opinions, because on the contrary I am listening to them, and that's why I post my views on them to work towards common ground. And stop with this "no man" attitude, it is pure ignorance! I have never ignored your questions, I answered them every time. The only reason I briefly mentioned about my private life, was in a bid that you actually saw the real me and understood just how difficult situations can be at times, situations like this. Nothing is perfect, but you just have this attitude of not allowing anyone, and more so myself, to express an opinion. The other day you said and I quote that I "don't discuss anything, responding a message is the same thing as discussing a topic, I wanted 4 or 5 people discussing the sources not only you saying "We have used that same source in the past, so why shouldn't we use this time" that's been your argument for a like a year now". I'm here responding to yours and other views. But then you contradict yourself by saying to respond to a message is to discuss. You then state you wanted 4 or 5 people to discuss the sources. Xelaxa, and myself are 2 so far, and if you took any notice to what Cooper said, he also informed you that he would have a look at them too once he had some time. So give Cooper the chance, seeing as he does have real life commitments too. And no this hasn't been the same argument with me for the last year now, but you wouldn't have known that as you pointed out that you chose to refrain from collaborating last year. So if you're going to start making up accusative lies, I'd suggest that you find evidence to back them up, otherwise they are just pure lies that you post Tony! Wesley♦^Mouse 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC

And once again you ignored my question... And don't worry man appearently someone else took my name off the member's list of the project eurovision. Most certainly you... You're pathetic man... See you in hell --Tony0106 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The talk page archives show clearly what happened last year, so I'm not explaining it in detail. In short, a far more constructive discussion eventually occurred and it was agreed based on the evidence and policy based arguments that news.az et al were unreliable. The tragedy was that the discussion got derailed by strawman arguments and personal attacks which poisoned the well of the anti-.az sources position - so Tony's points did have credibility, it was the way they were made which was the real problem. My main mistake, quite frankly, was not to play devils advocate and make policy based arguments against the .az sources myself so a fairer debate could occur. I see similar attacks being made here like before, with them yet gain being left hanging by a blanket refusal to withdraw them, although at least this time we have fallen short of attacks the long lines of me and Wesley being sock-puppets of each other. CT Cooper · talk 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Tony, while he clearly reacted wrongly to the objections, has a point about at least some of the sources. The article used for France dates from shortly after the 2012 final, and the one from Spain is from a week before the final, so both are pretty dated and the positions stated in them can be subject to change. Moreover, none of them offers a positive confirmation in the spirit of "We will be there", just a negative one, like "We're not planning to withdraw". In my opinion, taking either as a confirmation of participation would assume too much from the articles, and that's something we can't do. Even if I think both countries being in ESC 2013 is a pretty safe bet, the articles offer a really weak support for that. Even you said it, Wesley. I quote: "In regards to Spain. The link for Spain does contain a quotation from Federico Llanos at TVE, which states Spain won't leave the Eurovision, as they like the fact they are part of the Big Five and automatically qualify to the finals. Although reading between the lines, it does seem to imply that if Spain lost its Big Five status, that they would possibly rethink their Eurovision plans. And what are the chances of the EBU expelling Spain as a member of the Big Five? Highly unlikely! " (Bolds added by me). I don't think we should read between the lines, or ponder chances of things happening (That's kinda dwelving in WP:CRYSTAL territory). Therefore, I'm in favor of not taking them as confirmed unless we have a reliable source that offers a positive confirmation, as in "Spain/France will be in Malmö" or "Spain/France is searching artists for Eurovison 2013". Any opinions? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

On negative confirmation, I would say it depends on the circumstances. If a reliable source came out tomorrow saying that country X is not going to withdraw, then that would probably pass as a confirmation. Its the vagueness combined with the age of the sources which is the problem here in my opinion - certainly anything before the conclusion of ESC 2012 should be presumed dodgy. CT Cooper · talk 11:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, in regards to Spain, the broadcaster's official Eurovision site was updated with a new "Malmö 2013" layout, as well as their official Eurovision Facebook and Twitter accounts. This work was done in August, as announced in one of their tweets. So maybe the previous vague confirmation can be combined with this fact.95.63.252.185 (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That would arguably be a form of synthesis, which is a type of original research, that is not allowed on Wikipedia. In any case, that is only indirectly relevant so cannot be considered confirmation of participation. CT Cooper · talk 14:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can undertand that. I was thinking about it as a circumstance that reinforces the statement from the source in the article that TVE does not consider withdrawing.Xelaxa (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering all that has been discussed, I open the question: Should we unlist them as confirmed until we find better sources? Not A Superhero (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I would say yes. CT Cooper · talk 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I don't know how to edit the map, though. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering

I suggest people wait to add countries, before escdaily, esctoday (etc.) or eurovision.tv and the broadcaster confirms anything. What do people say to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, no. Any article on Wikipedia needs to contain as much content as possible that can be easily verified by reliable sources. It isn't a case of wait until the EBU release the participation list, but a case of maintaining an article with turn of events in an encyclopaedic manner, whilst keeping within Wikipedias core policies. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know if the sources for Poland and Greece really are confirmed soruces? I mean if they can be used as a confirmation for these two countries to take part (Poland and Greece have no coulour in the map). /Hollac16 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

TVP1 said just two days ago on their FB page that no decision has been made yet! Those fanwank pages on eurovision are just making up their stuff.

--Ohnder (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please could you reword the w**k expletive? I find that word a little distasteful, especially when there are younger viewers. The issue at hand though regarding Poland is looking like a swings and roundabouts case. Wondering myself if we should replace back under "other countries" where it once was, until we know for certain. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I like to have information officially confirmed before anything happens. People (at least I do) get a bit disappointed when the countries you once thought were in the contest, isn't after all. So when trustful websites publish confirmations, then it can be changed on this site. You get my point? English isn't the language I know the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There's more to an encyclopaedic than using official sources. A broadcaster may hold an interview with other media outlets to confirm participation etc, and those sources are just as worthy than an official statement published on a national broadcaster website. Bearing in mind that other media outlets need to be reliable and trustworthy themselves. So I would personally have to disagree with you on this one I'm afraid. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wesley is correct that the current definition of confirmed is that a reliable source has stated that country X will participate - there has been talk about creating a specific criteria, but that's how it is for the moment.

On Poland, it should not have been moved back to confirmed without talk page consensus given the ongoing discussion. Given doubts over its confirmation, I have moved it back to unconfirmed. Ultimately whatever criteria we us, confirmation is not a race, and it is best to wait until we are really sure before listing a country as confirmed. CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian national final on February 19th?

According to Eurovoix, they say the Ukrainian artist will be selected on February 19th and not 16th.

http://eurovoix.com/ukraine-ntu-calls-for-2013-submissions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.185.185 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Poland

Poland have confirmed: http://www.eurovision-spain.com/iphp/noticia.php?numero=8202 (EurovisionSpain.com) -- 89.131.62.71 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The source has been previously rejected on grounds that it contradicts information from the broadcaster that they would make a decision in October and an apparent statement on their official Facebook page that they had not yet made a decision. Overall, the sources' reliability is in question. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything that we can do to stop this barbaric reinsertion of Poland using sources that are either prohibited due to their obvious fan blog status, or sources that have already been discredited as unreliable? So far we've had ΤΔΚΑ251001 (talk · contribs) use this fanblog site; and more recently Mopje18 (talk · contribs) reinserted the already discredited source. And to add more confusion to all of this, one other website states that Poland won't be retuning in 2013, while OGAE Poland confirm that no decision has been made yet. My proposal merely for this particular perplexed case is that we wait for more solid sources either from TVP, Eurovision.tv, ESCToday, or ESCDaily to outright confirm Poland's decision (whatever it may be). Wesley♦^Mouse 15:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, not only since a blog is a self-published source and should not be used, they are also non-English sources, which does not help their status. We should wait for one of the WP:Eurovision reliable sources. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkey will not announce the singer on 2 November

The article says TRT will organise a meeting with some famous Turkish artists just to ask their opinions about who they should send on 2nd November. Not an official date to announce the singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.194.58 (talk • contribs)

France and Spain

The article says that 34 countries have confirmed for 2013. However, on the map there are 36 countries confirmed. If France and Spain are not confirmed, than the map should be changed and France and Spain should change colour from purple to grey. Now, if the two countries mentioned are confirmed, they should return to the confirmed finals table again. /Hollac16 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a tricky one to be honest. The map itself is also used on other language Wikipedias. Even though here at English Wiki we have established the sources for France and Spain to be dubious, the other language pages still include them including the dodgy sources. If we're to deselect France and Spain on the map, then we'd need someone to visit our counterpart Wikipedia's and remove France and Spain from their articles too, while informing them in their respective languages as to why they are not being included at this present time. And sorry to say, I'm not that knowledgeable in that many languages. This will need some team work to let the other Wikipedia's know of the situation. Any volunteers!? Wesley♦^Mouse 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Kirilloparma did it for it.wiki; I suggest to remove however the countries from the Commons Map, linking the discussions in en.wiki for more information. --Gce (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking to other projects is worth a go but if there is a dispute, commons:COM:NPOV states that Commons's does not attempt to resolve it i.e. if there is no agreement, multiple uploads of the file are the only real option. CT Cooper · talk 11:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I found other sources for Spain and France (from es.wiki): one and two; what do you think about them? --Gce (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

They are the two that have been discredited (see here). The only compromising solution that I can see if we place France and Spain into the "other countries" section for now, with those two sources. Because it was only one editor that stated they are unreliable, and yet we have nothing solid enough to confirm they really are unreliable sources. As long as both are place in the other section, then we've found a way around the map, plus we are able to state what the sources are saying, while at the same time be able to also add that no official decision has been stated yet. But obvously without making us sound like we're reporting news. Wesley♦^Mouse 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If Serbia has confirmed (according to this article), Spain also confirmed because the reliable source used to Serbia (http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/8/post/2012/05/switzerland-serbia-and-ireland-confirms-2013-participation.html) is eurovision-contest.eu and there is another source of the same website that confirms the participation of Spain (http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/8/post/2012/05/next-countries-has-confirmed-2013-participation.html). JoseDLG (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

JoseDLG - see #Please discuss: Are France, Romania, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey actually confirmed?. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking this section of the discussion, and said that the source of Serbia is reliable(http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/8/post/2012/05/switzerland-serbia-and-ireland-confirms-2013-participation.html). Therefore, because as in the same source of Serbia, Spain is cited as confirmed (quote:"The full list of confirmed participants for now, looks as follows: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland."), Spain should be added to the list. JoseDLG (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A better and more recent (as well as reliable) source has been found confirming France and Spain. Article now includes them. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to kindly argue the validity of the sources for France and Spain (Eurovision Times). I don't think it's as credible as some other websites, as far as I know, it is a blog and relies mostly on other sources, but doesn't cite the original source on numerous occassions. I think it they might have been following the informal reports of countries saying they would be participating in 2013 immediately following the 2012 contest. Dfizzles (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

EurovisionTimes were established months ago as NOT being a blog, and have been used on other annual pages for the last few years that I have noticed. And if they are also relying on other sources, then that is an advantage not a disadvantage, as we are able to verify that EurovisionTimes are producing factual truth by checking who they are citing within their news reports. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It was a bit misleading to me because on the description of site, it clearly says it's a fan blog. Dfizzles (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well they all are when you think about it, even ESCToday. They are all companies providing news in a blog-like format to fans of Eurovision. But what it all boils down to is these sites providing accurate and reliable news, and not fantasy make-believe. Every new Eurovision-news website needs to start off sometime or another, and over the years there will be new websites created to provide the same Eurovision news. Ultimately we should be welcoming these new websites with open arms, as it gives us as editors other sources to use, rather than having references from the same website. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision hacking - again!?

I've noticed a pile of ESCDaily.com citations are now showing as dead links. Upon checking their website it appears every article they have every published has vanished into thin-air. As of yet there has been nothing reported as to why this has happened. One can only assume based on ESCToday and Eurovision.tv being hacked into a few months ago that ESCDaily may have become victim this time. Please could we be vigilant to this and keep an eye on any developments regarding ESCDaily. Thanks Wesley♦^Mouse 17:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Their front page works but the news archives seem to have been "emptied" - it may be a technical fault but another hacking is not implausible. In any case, I think it needs to be asked that editors don't start mass removing links to ESCDaily and related content, to allow for the possibility of the links coming back online. The template {{dead link}} will be enough for now - for older news stories a link to the Internet Archive might serve to fix the issue and is good practice for any source - this can be done by adding archiveurl= to templates such as {{cite web}}. CT Cooper · talk 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good news! Their archives and all other content has been restored. Strange though that their team haven't released a statement to explain what happened. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Production developments

Executive producer Martin Österdahl has announced that there will be just one presenter for the first time since 1995 and has made some other statements surrounding the production values of the contest ("more intimate setting", "move away from the recent tradition of huge LED video screens", etc.), in an interview to Dagens Nyheter (Source: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5312493). Should these developments be mentioned in the Format section of the article?Xelaxa (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that would be the ideal place to put it yes. But personally I'd word it in a way that doesn't make it come across to the general viewer that this decision has been "set in stone" but more along the lines that they (SVT) have suggested that this may happen, as we all know from previous years, what they brainstorm and what actually happens nearer the time have always been two different things. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ESCToday have just reported the same news. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Eurovision website itself now has an article relating to it: [3] -- MC95 15:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like SVT really do want to lower the costs and do the contest cheap-budget. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are in fact further articles about SVT's intended approach and ambitions on Esctoday [4] and the Eurovision website [5], using an SVT.se article as a source. Could someone please summarize these ideas in an appropiate way in the Format section? I don't think I have the neccessary skills to start with it.Xelaxa (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of green colour

This is peanuts really, but I miss an explanation of the green colour to the map description now that the Netherlands have been coloured green. Best regards Aejsing (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

 about to fix it - whoops when Netherlands was turned green, nobody updated the infobox to include the key code to explain what green means. Basically, yellow = withdraw/not participating; purple = confirmed; and green = selected either song and/or participant. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, um i noticed while is says "Liechtenstein is not participating" on the "other countries" section of the article, the map in the top leaves its colour as grey... shouldn't it be yellow like andorra or the czech republic And the same with the vatican city, i dont think theyll be participating soon :) just another housekeeping-ish thing oh and i dont really know how to edit wikipedia so can someone help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.68.101 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No not really. Yellow means they have participated in the past but are not doing in 2013. As Liechtenstein and the Vatican have never even participated before, then they cannot be coloured yellow on the map, and thus must remain grey. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

The Macedonian daily newspaper Vest published an article in 15 October 2012 about the upcoming edition of the annual music festival Skopje Fest. On many occasions until 2011, this festival served as the national selection process of Macedonia for the Eurovision Song Contest (referred by its abbreviation ESC in the rest of this section).

The aforementioned article states that the Skopje Fest 2012 will be held without any involvement in Macedonia's process for selecting a participant for the ESC. Moreover, it cites the statement of Ljupcho Mirkovski, a member of the festival's committee, who reports that the model for selecting the entry for ESC will be decided after the end of Skopje Fest 2012, in late November.

This means that the participation of Macedonia is confirmed and the country should be added to the list of participating countries in this article.

ESCMKD (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well with what you have written you have actually stated the opposite and that it shouldn't be listed as confirmed yet. You pointed out that Ljupcho Mirkovski states a decision will only be made after the Skopje Fest. So that alone is only a presumption and not a definite yes. Only definite confirmed should be listed in the table, not "um-ahh maybe, we're still thinking about it" statements. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't restate the article well enough, but I would like to point out that Ljupcho Mirkovski stated that MKRTV is uncertain about the selection process to be used, and not about the participation in Malmö. If they were still undecided about the participation of Macedonia, why would they make a statement to the public that they will be looking for the way of selecting the participant? Nevertheless, I can understand that this kind of statements can be too implicit to be counted as an actual confirmation, therefore unacceptable for Wikipedia. At least, I can suggest you to include Macedonia into the list of other countries where Italy and Poland whose participation (or absence) is not confirmed yet (but their officials made some sort of statements about ESC) are listed. ESCMKD (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that would be the idealogical place yes. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Irish national final to be held on February 22nd

Esctoday have reported that the Irish final will be on the 22nd February.

Source - http://www.esctoday.com/?p=38109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.19.158 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Added Thanks. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Spain and France

Spain and France will also competeng! On the Swedish Wikipedia it will be writen so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.68.97 (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See #France and Spain -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Italy is in

http://www.eurofestival.ws/2012/10/23/ufficiale-litalia-sara-in-gara-alleurovision-2013/

This website was considered reliable last year. --SimoneMLK (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like RAI confirmed on its official ESC Facebook page. --SimoneMLK (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Someone add them to the confirmed table. But forgot to remove them from the "other countries" section too (tut tut). Anyhow, fixed it now. Also the ref used was not tagged properly, so had to fix that as well. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a "thirty-five" to be corrected in the first paragraph, too. :) --SimoneMLK (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Calendar

I think adding calendar to the article would be good idea. Svwiki is also doing it, and I think it's pretty good. --Olli (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Calendars of that nature are not of encyclopaedic value, and are enticing potential vandalism to them. Plus they have been removed in the past. If you wish to have a calendar of events then create a fanblog, but don't be doing on an Encyclopaedia. Thanks, Wesley♦^Mouse 12:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what Svwiki is thinking to be honest - calendars are clearly beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to provide a summary of known knowledge on a subject primarily written in prose from a long-term historical perspective, not provide a noticeboard of tables for fans. They also go against the general principle derived from Wikipedia:Recentism, which if it isn't a permanent addition to an article it shouldn't be added at all. CT Cooper · talk 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe use this as a solitary source? Spa-Franks (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But its been established Spa that they don't hold a purpose on an encyclopaedia. I pointed out one problem if we started to include them, and Cooper explained in more detail why they are prohibited. So its a clear no-go area I'm afraid to say. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely we could use that in the already established tables, we did last year? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly AxG. The only bit of vital and relevant information is when an artist and/or song is being selected, which is factual to the whole thing anyway. Do we really need to keep an account of semi-finals or preliminary rounds of each respective nation selection taking place? The general (and unfamiliar) reader will most likely want to just know about the contest, who is representing which country and with what song. And probably when that selection decision will be made. No need to go over the top! Like they say, less is more! Wesley♦^Mouse 17:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We already show on the participation table when a national final is taking place. The main articles cover the finer details surrounding the national selection process, along with dates of each round (if any). Wesley♦^Mouse 17:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Could that Calender source link be used for the main article to compile some of the sources into one? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It was last year, so I don't see why not. But obviously only to cite the dates that are in the participation table lol. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was insinuating originally. I'm sorry if I caused confusion. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Greek Confirmation?

According to this article, record companies along with ERT are working together for Eurovision 2013.

http://www.escflashmalta.com/index.php/music-news/international-music-news/item/2070-greece-early-rumours-for-eurovision-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.120.191 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It says "It seems that the collaboration between the record label (Universal Music) and ERT will continue", not a confirmation yet. Xelaxa (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Now we do have a confirmation on Esctoday: (http://www.esctoday.com/?p=38578) Xelaxa (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

seems that norway is withdrawing

nrk doesnt seem to be ready to admit it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source what would confirm your words? Kirilloparma (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

it isnt public knowledge so far and until nrk is willing to reveal it there isnt any sources. i suggest that norway is put on the list of possible withdrawals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources, the information is not verifiable. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Xelaxa (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

so, you will rather ban than listen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, will the IP remain civil at all times to Wikipedians. Secondly, nobody mentioned anything about banning, so where on Earth did you get that idea from? Thirdly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia as you will have noticed by now. Every piece of content you find on the millions of articles are voluntary contributions from a community of editors. Content needs to be cited using sources found on the internet to provide verifiability to the content, so that the general reader knows that we are providing factual evidence and not make-believe stories. You have already stated that NRK haven't published anything on the internet, and therefore without that proof we cannot verify that what is being told is true or not. If any editor added content based on original research then they'd be violating the core policies of Wikipedia and thus putting themselves under sanctions of bans etc. Do you really want to jeopardise an editor by demanding they publish your original research which would be in a violation of WP:NOT#OR? Now until there published evidence from a reliable source to confirm what you're telling us here, then Norway will not be placed as a withdrawal. Besides, we no longer have a section headed as "Possibles", as that is speculative header. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and with two sources contradicting your theory ESCXtra and NRK informing the ever reliable ESCToday that a national selection is underway, then what you are reporting here is pure make-believe. A national broadcaster would not go to the financial troubles of a national selection only to withdraw from the contest. Now please, end this charade and get back to proper editing. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much Wes, this Norwegian user has been known to me for a long time, and has also posted threads speculating that Norway will withdraw in previous years. I have never seen the user respond constructively to requests to provide evidence for his/her claims, with the best example of this being the long running campaign to remove all reference to Oslo from the ESC 2010 article on a spurious basis - see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010, the FAQ, and the archives. While I do even now try and follow WP:AGF with him/her, there is a pattern which points to these threads being driven by a grudge against NRK. CT Cooper · talk 23:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

i dont hold a grudge against nrk but i dont want them to spread lies either. the fact remains however that they wont release any information this year so they might hold a national final but they most likely wont participate. as for eurovision song contest 2010 it was actually held in bærum and i know because i was there. i am always honest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me IP user, but may I suggest that you have a read at WP:TPG and learn how to use talk pages properly for starters. You always seem to be adding your comments directly in line with other editors, rather than starting on a new line. Also you have never signed a comment yet. I've had to manually sign the last 3 messages on your behalf. Please in future end your comment with ~~~~ before posting it. Thank you.

Now in regards to what you are saying, you state NRK are spreading lies, yet there is nothing to back up your opinion here. So in all reality, it just looks like you're spreading lies, as you have never yet provided a source to confirm what you are saying. Now if there are no sources out there, then I strongly advise you to drop this barbaric episode, and concentrate on other areas. Wesley♦^Mouse 03:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP may be "anti-NRK" here, but on the 2012 page we had speculative messages about them being confirmed. We have a source here saying (from NRK) that the final will be on 9 February, with "new" hosts. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Now we even know that EBU has determined Norway will participate in the second semi-final at the 2013 Contest.[6] Xelaxa (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. How would we present this on the article? We now know Denmark are in semi 1, and Norway in semi 2. The rest we won't know until January. Do we footnote it? And its also interesting how the rules for the running order have been modernised too. I don't mind wording that into the article tomorrow, unless someone else fancies doing it before hand. Wesley♦^Mouse 02:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It should either be footnoted or not mentioned until we are in position to split all the countries - the current duplication doesn't look right at all. In any case, it should also be explained why things are as they are rather than leaving readers to guess. CT Cooper · talk 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I added an explanation before the tables. Any opinions? Not A Superhero (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. CT Cooper · talk 19:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

New rules for the running order

There are a new rule for the running order. Can someone please add this information in a correct way: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=running_order_malmoe_2013_to_be_determined_by_producers /Hollac16 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Added to the article. Not A Superhero (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese participation unknown due to economical crisis

Should we add Portugal to possible withdrawals?

Source - http://12points.tv/spain-calling/item/1218-silencio-in-portugal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.26.233 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We no longer have a section for possible withdrawals/debuts/returns. Anything like that would get mentioned in the "Other countries" section. Although I vaguely recall a discussion 12 months ago regarding that website the you have sourced as being unreliable. SO I would be inclined to treat that as dubious anyway. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Greece are confirmed for Eurovision 2013

esctoday.com have confirmed Greece's participation.

http://www.esctoday.com/?p=38578 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.26.233 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Source has already been added to the article. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

ESCToday are reporting San Marino are most likely to be in Malmo and details on their selection process to be announced shortly. Part of me thinks it would be safe to add to the participants table, yet the other part of me says to add to "other countries" for now. Any views on this? Also (and off topic, but nevertheless), it is looking very likely that a participation record will be broken in 2013. With only Montenegro, Poland, and Portugal still to announce, it is looking like 2013 could have 44 nations. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that as long as is possible add it to the participants table, to not officially but we'll see, maybe in a few days will be official information. Kirilloparma (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If not San Marino will be added with this soruce, then Bosnia and Slovakia must be taken away from the list. Their sources also says only "it is most likley that XXX will be in Malmö in 2013." /Hollac16 (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moldovan artist and song to be selected February/March

Esctoday have reported TRM have stated their national selection is likely to be in February or March.

http://www.esctoday.com/?p=38665 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.26.233 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian National Final moved to December

According to Oikotimes, NTU have changed the date to December 2012.

https://oikotimesofficial.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/ukraine-2013-nf-date-changed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.26.233 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Belgian entry to be selected December 16th

According to escxtra.com Roberto's song is apparently being chosen next month.

Source - http://escxtra.com/2012/11/national-final-on-december-16th/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.221.40 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The original source is an audio file on RTBF's website, where Roberto himself says (in French) the national final will be held on December 16th: http://www.rtbf.be/info/medias/detail_roberto-bellarosa-le-gagnant-de-the-voice-choisi-pour-l-eurovision?id=7875573 Xelaxa (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Poland not returning to Eurovision 2013.

TVP have officially confirmed they won't be returning to the Eurovision Song Contest next year.

http://www.esctoday.com/?p=39143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.26.233 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This information has already been added to the article Kirilloparma (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a polite note; please don't put guillemet quotes around organization names. Quotes are not placed around organization names in English in any case, and this particular type of quote mark isn't used in English at all and is likely to cause confusion among readers. CT Cooper · talk 19:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro confirm Eurovision 2013 participation.

They have confirmed to esctoday.com

Source - http://www.esctoday.com/?p=39161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.26.233 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Already added. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Portugal withdraws from the 2013 edition

Nov. 22: ESCToday has confirmed that Portugal will not be participating in the Eurovision Song Contest set to be held in Malmo, Sweden.

Source - http://www.esctoday.com/?p=39164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velcrog (talk • contribs)

Done. Also please sign your posts by using the signature icon in the toolbar or by typing ~~~~. Thanks. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Portugal will NOT compete!

Portugal will not be in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013! http://www.esctoday.com/?p=39164 /Hollac16 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Already done. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove Portugal from the list? It was confirmed through ESCToday, that I won't be making an appearance in Malmö... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.245.90 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's more like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.245.90 (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful and look at the articles History, non of my edits removed Portugal. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Slovak Withdrawal?

is it possible for Slovakia to withdraw?

http://eschungary.hu/eurovizio-2013/szlovak-nem-az-eurovizio-2013-ra/

Shadowtiger97 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia has until the closing date (around December) to consider participating or not, but currently with reliable sources, Slovakia is 'most likely to be in Malmo'. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

escXtra is reporting that Slovakia remains to be undecided for Malmö. Article on escXtra Dfizzles (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

eurovision.tv havent confirmed that portugal is withdrawing.

therefore i suggest that it is added to possible withdrawals until they confirm it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think, and looking through Eurovision.tv, that they did not announce that Poland withdraw from last year (unless the tags are wrong), so we might me waiting a long time. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It is possible they would not tell about a withdrawal a corporate website. Xelaxa (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering ESCToday made the announcement, then I'd say Portugal have withdrawn. ESCToday pride themselves on a high standard of accuracy and verifiability. Eurovision.tv rarely announce withdrawals until they publish the official list in December. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A question

When will it be most approateiate to add the section of the diagram with "english translation"? Sorry, if I'm hard to understand :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe when we have the first song. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maltese National Final

Maltese National Final on January 2013!

http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/malta-69-semi-finalists-announced/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuromaniaC (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

ESCToday claimes that five countries have NOT confirmed participation!

Today ESCToday publish a report (here [[7]]) says that five countries (FYR Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain) have NOT confirmed its participation for 2013. So, should these countries be remowed until safer confirmation will be anonunced? /Hollac16 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia has not made a decision yet, they'll do next week. Slovenia has applied but did not have paid the fee yet because they don't have the money for it. If they can't find the money before 15th December, Slovenia is out. Of the other I don't know anything. 81.241.141.249 (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, now Macedonia have confirmed [8], four to go. Where is it said that it is 15 December which is the deadline for countries to sign up for 2013? /Hollac16 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Slovene people I know on a forum said that their broadcaster told them they should pay the fee before 15th December, don't know if this is a deadline for participation. But when a country withdraws after 15th December, they'll be fined. 81.241.141.249 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a reliable source to verify this 15 December deadline date, then I would strongly suggest that such details are not added to the article as it would be in violation to original research. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Too much information about Malmö?

Is too much information given about Malmö in the "Location" part? I personally think it would be enough to state that Malmö has hosted the Contest previously, what its population is, and where it is located. If a reader wants to know anything else they can go to the article, as the link at the top of the section suggests. As it is, though, I think it bloats the article as a whole. Iain (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a new standard that was introduced during the writing of ESC 2012 article, in which a brief details of the host city based on the lead section of the respective host city article, is included. The standard helped to gain WP:ESC its first GA-class for the 2012 article, and as a result has been implemented onto other articles. It was also discussed by the project's members here. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Loads of UK Speculation - Keep an eye on vandalism

Rylan Clark has hinted in the Metro (leading to subsequent articles in the Radio Times etc.) that he would "like" to represent the UK next year. No doubt some opportunist will add him in; be vigilant, or, add a note. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

[FORUM MODE]Oh ****[/FORUM MODE]. I will be vigilante though. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

RTP and the EBU negotiating participation

RTP and the EBU are negotiating the cost of the participation of Portugal. Hopefully they could be in Malmo, if they could pay a cheaper fee.

http://cronicasdeeurofestivais.blogspot.pt/2012/11/esc-2013-ainda-ha-esperanca-para.html

Shadowtiger97 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That source is a fanblog, reliability is dubious. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

TVR officially confirms Romanian participation.

TVR have confirmed to esctoday.com

http://www.esctoday.com/?p=39280

Shadowtiger97 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Already added -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed...

So there are six finalists despite the semifinals not having concluded? I can sort of see the hosts making it (except even in football the hosts don't get that easy a road), but as for the rest, I think this needs to be explained for the general reader. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles on each edition of this contest should not expand too much on the rules of the contest as they are all explained in the Eurovision Song Contest article. But to give you a short explanation, The Big 5 are the five countries that contributes the most money to the EBU and for that they have an already secured places in the final, and Sweden who won this year as host will also only participate in the final.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Greek participation more secure with tourism minister

Ms. Olga Kefalogianni, has said to the press that the chances of Greece in Eurovision 2013 are increasing. They've managed to find a sponsor, and ERT shouldn't have to pay for a national final. The money to secure the Greeks should be obtained December 13th, two days before the EBU deadline.

Source - http://oikotimesofficial.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/tourism-minister-secures-eurovision-2013/

Shadowtiger97 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

the guardian writes that greece and cyprus is leaving

germany seems to be considering withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt Germany will be withdrawing at this stage. Eurovision is a very popular event in Germany. And their selection formula is in full swing. Please, add sources to back up your so called news. As for Cyprus and Greece, we're waiting for an official word from their broadcasters, which should be soon. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just putting this [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20605959] here, "Eurovision Song Contest organisers have called reports Greece and Cyprus will pull out of 2014's event 'premature'." (Edit: Just seen it says 2014, that might be a typo) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i believe this to be the link to article that tv 2 got information from. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/shortcuts/2012/dec/05/end-eurovision-song-contest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk • contribs)

These so called 'journalists' aren't very bright...Cyprus will be in Malmo. As for Greece they've not even announced anything yet, just shows they don't pay attention. Plus their sarcasm is annoying, seriously...four nations pulled out? Cough, only two, I do have hope that Greece shall be in Malmo. It's a very lazy article, with unreliable and false accusations. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit tongue in cheek ain't it Shadow? I highly doubt the BBC are "unreliable" considering they are one of the UK's national broadcasters. The British tabloid press on the other hand have been known to get it wrong in the past. But the journalists are only human, and humans are prone to making mistakes - so don't heckle them for making human errors. Making mistakes is part of life, its how we learn things - nobody is 100% perfect. Wesley♦^Mouse 13:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes consider the BBC to be unreliable. They said Labour would win Election '92 (and I'm glad they got that wrong), amongst others... In terms of Eurovision, they made a massive fuss about the Russian Grannies last year, with one report saying "can anyone stop them?" - Sweden won by miles. I wouldn't blindly follow the BBC. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What and what isn't considered reliable is determined by the WP:IRS guideline, not by editors' personal beliefs, and BBC News is regarded as reliable on current standards, although some level of caution with any news source is sensible. What Spa-Franks refers to is an incident from twenty years ago caused by a failure in polling methods of the time - the BBC don't do polling; they report what polls done on their behalf predict, so I don't see the relevance of that to this discussion. CT Cooper · talk 23:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

They may have said Labour would win, but the exit poll, said that it would be a hung parliament, with options being that the Conservatives were short by 10 to Labour short by 13 seats. However in 2005 the exit poll got it spot on, with a majority for Labour of 66. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that reliable sources can sometimes be unreliable. Just a bad example, really. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is Greece yellow on the map?

I think that Greece should be added grey colour due to that they don't have confirmed participation. The English article does not says that they have confirmed not participation 2013. If Bosnia is added grey then Greece should be so too! (Until a safer confirmation are found!) /Hollac16 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly just an error, we're just awaiting on a confirmation from BHRT upon Bosnia and Herzegovina's plans for Eurovision 2013, so I do agree they should be grey until a more valid source is available. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the participation map Shadow? Greece and Bosnia are both grey and have been for the past 24 hours, seeing as I fixed the errors on the map myself! Wesley♦^Mouse 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I need to pay more attention. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is yellow a bad colour or cultural bad for the people of Greece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsons5 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Shqip

Isn't it a little presumptuous to say officially that the Albanian entry will be in Albanian? I mean, out of all 9 of Albania's entries to date, only 3 of the winning songs of FiK have been performed in the original language at the ESC that they were performed in at FiK. anto475 08:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority of songs for FIK are in Albanian, if the winner in the future decides to recite the song into English or another language for Eurovision, then it will be updated. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Croatia

Croatian entry and act to be announced by Mid February!

http://www.esctoday.com/?p=39530 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuromaniaC (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain

Spanish broadcaster has announced the Spanish artist will be announced "within the next days" ("en los próximos días"). (http://www.rtve.es/television/20121210/tve-elegira-representante-espana-eurovision-2013-seleccion-interna/584592.shtml) Would it be ok to write down "TBD December 2012" in the Artist column? Xelaxa (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Unless the source explicitly states the decision will be made in the month of December. We shouldn't speculate that it would be December just because a news article states "within a few days", how long is a few days? In 21 days time we will be in January, and that is still a "few days" - it that long known proverbial question... "how long is a piece of string? how ever long you wish it to be". Wesley♦^Mouse 10:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Source of Slovenia's participation?

There is no confirmation mentioned in the source that Slovenia will participate - it is just said that the TV-channel of Slovenia is thinking about to change the national selection, due the songs in the last years were not successful. Does anybody have a real source, in which RTV SLO confirms the participation? --Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We are waiting for a response from RTVSLO, the article shows some ideas for Malmo...If we don't receive a confirmation from the broadcaster, they will probably be on the EBU's list of participating countries in Eurovision 2013, which is scheduled to be released before Christmas. Shadowtiger97 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When Greece and Bosnia are not mentioned as others semi final participants, due there hasn't been a confirmation so far, why is Slovenia mentioned? Wouldn't it be correct to add Slovenia to the 'other countries' at the moment until confirmation? --Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You may both wish to refer to what was discussed previously on this matter via the talk page archive. ESCToday have Slovenia enlisted as unknown, but it is worth noting that ESCToday do explicitly state that the Slovene broadcaster haven't confirmed details independently with ESCToday. That doesn't mean that Slovenia are unconfirmed, it just means that they may have informed a different Eurovision-related website and/or other media outlet about their intentions to participate which can and has been sourced. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

According this slovenian website the participation of Slovenia depends on the fact, that RTVSLO has to find sponsors otherwise it can't participate, due financial reasons. --Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Greece shall not be withdrawing?

According to this source, ERT shall not be dropping out of Eurovision. As it'll still cost them money whether they participate or not.

Source - http://oikotimesofficial.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/ert-sticks-to-primary-decision/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowtiger97 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oikotimes' reliability has been discussed by members of the project numerous times now, and it was decided that they are semi-reliable and should only be used if they mention a source within their news article. This is because anyone can write an article on Oikotimes and get it published, thus making any publications dubious on verifiability. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Then, has also eurofestival.ws given a false news? --Gce (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How com it says that Greece is withdrawing? It hasnt given any reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.188.56 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RTRS Want To Rescue Bosnian Participation

RTRS are disgusted with BHRT's decision to withdraw, but they want to send a song for Malmö. Bosnia and Herzegovina could have a u-turn for Eurovision.

Source - escxtra.com/2012/12/rtrs-wants-to-go-to-eurovision/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.152.195 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

TRT withdraws

Turkey's withdrawing according to its website: http://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/trt-eurovision-kararini-acikladi-67160.html It may be an idea to colour Turkey yellow.

This may be the smallest contest since 2010!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.188.56 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is very dubious and contradictory within itself. Even though the source is in Turkish, I have used google translation services. And the source starts off as stating Turkey will be present. Yet the second part of the article states they won't be present. How can a news article be stating two different things? Its either one way or another. May I suggest placing Turkey into the "other countries" section for now until we're able to verify one way or another what is happening. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source for Turkey's withdrawal: http://escxtra.com/2012/12/turkey-will-not-participate-in-malmo/ Lukex115 (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lukex, that is much better. The source originally used was rather confusing and contradicted itself, purely because the TRT page started off by saying Turkey will be in Sweden, but then finished off their news report by saying they wouldn't be there. I'm sure you can appreciate the confusion when an article is stating two different facts that don't exactly help the situation. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted before reading this section (mainly for problem in map). --Gce (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Italian selection

As far as I know, RAI has not confirmed if the Italian entry will be selected through the Sanremo Music Festival, as in the previous two years, or not. This source confirms that we still don't know how RAI will pick its entry for the 2013 ESC. Moreover, the Sanremo Music Festival is likely to be postponed, because of the Italian general election, which is supposed to be held on the same days of the festival. Therefore, I think we should not claim in the article that the Italian song and artists will be selected on 16 February 2013, unless there are sources confirming it (moreover, in 2012 the song was internally selected after the Sanremo Music Festival, and it was not announced during the final night of the competition). --Stee888 (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I confirm, Sanremo isn't a method of selection unless Rai say it explicitely; I remove the wrong information from the page. --Gce (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Latvia and English language

Look carefully at the song of Latvian selection: one is in Latvian and not in English, then it's not writable that the language of the Latvian song for ESC is surely in English. --Gce (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Norway

Norway is missing from the participating countries list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.216.24 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why there are 39 participating countries so far and not 38 like someone just updated. KobiNew (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Norway isn't missing whatsoever. A few weeks ago a draw was made, and Denmark was placed into semi-final 1, and Norway into semi-final 2. These have been shown on the article, with the remaining countries placed into a third table enlisted as "other semi-finalists", until the semi-final draw in January has been completed. Wesley♦^Mouse 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Greece in Malmo

The EBU have been evaluating the withdrawals for Malmo obviously being:

Bosnia and Herzegovina,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia and Turkey

Greece however aren't mentioned, and is therefore along with the other 39 candidates...right?

Source - http://www3.ebu.ch/cms/en/sites/ebu/home/calendar/eurovision-song-contest.html Shadowtiger97 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

From that, Greece should remain in grey for the moment. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

Rather than engage in an edit war, I'll be wise and post here about the recent addition from ‎Handsome128 (talk · contribs), who is claiming that Lys Assia will be representing San Marino. The source in question is from Eurosong.be (in Dutch), the title translated is "Lys Assia for San Marino to Eurovision?" - this itself uses a question mark suggesting a question and not a definite statement. The article uses words like 'negotiations', 'rumours'. Finally the last paragraph states "...it remains unclear whether any truth to the rumour. Ralph Siegel and San Marino broadcaster SMRTV have not responded yet and also Lys Assia remains, and that is rare, quiet." -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and maybe San Marino will withdraw out of time due to economic reasons, like stated here (in Italian). --Gce (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Map in Commons

Is normal that in the map there's the Kosovo clearly evidenced? It's a Republic de facto and not de iure, so if the map indicates Kosovo, it have to indicate also Nagorno-Karabach, Abkhazia, South Ossezia, Transinistria and Northern Cyprus. --Gce (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo is in a different league to the countries you have listed. While Kosovo is not a UN member, per List of states with limited recognition, Kosovo is recognised by 97 UN member states, a narrow majority. In comparison the Republic of Abkhazia is recognized by six UN members, the Republic of South Ossetia is recognized by five UN member states, Northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey, and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is recognized by no UN member states. In the context Eurovision, there have been attempts by Kosovo to participate in the contest reported by reliable sources, and although this effort has so far failed, this is not the case with any other state with significant non-recognition as far as I'm aware, making it particularly appropriate that the country is marked on Eurovision maps. CT Cooper · talk 21:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Concern for the future exchange of the 10 and 12 points between Cyprus, Israel and Greece. Also Turkey withdrew from Eurovision due to religious reasons

There is concern among Eurovision fans and delegates of some European national channels that the alliance between Cyprus, Israel and Greece will be reflected in the voting system of the three countries between 14-18 May. It is highly possible that the representatives of the national channels of Cyprus, Israel and Greece will copy the Scandinavian system of exchanging votes among Nordic countries and make an Eastern Mediterranean alliance.

Additionally Turkey withdrew from Eurovision due to religious matters as the country has become Islamified and by using the pretext of the voting system and to a less extent the economic crisis through the withdrawal of other 4 bankrupt countries from Eurovision, it took the chance not to take part in the biggest song contest in the world. Even though Turkey has experienced positive economic growth having a positive effect on its budget and thus could participate, parliament of the country has decided to shift its policy towards the Middle East, abandoning every association with the West including the Eurovision song contest. That is why you should correct the reason for Turkey not participating this year in the Eurovision song contest. [9][10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotsia2 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole Cyprus-Israel-Greece thing seems pretty irrelevant. Having "concern among fans" usually isn't notable enough to be mentioned. Besides, you're going into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory there. The event hasn't happened, and speculation isn't very appropriate.

As for Turkey's withdrawal, I'm not very sure about the veracity of your sources. One is a blog, and the other states that Greece and Cyprus aren't attending, which is in contradiction to the official source. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)