Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Most likely countries

So there has been discussion on whether to add the countries that said that they will "most likely" participate in the contest next year to the "Other countries" section. This would include countries like Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova. There was a never a definite yes or no on this so I think we should finally find an answer. Put the "most likely" countries in the "Other countries" section or not? I'm for it. Jjj1238 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I gather the definitive answer was to go ahead with the suggestion method. However implementing it got sidetracked, with other unrelated issues taking priority. If anyone wishes to implement the suggested method, then please feel free to do so. Wesley ☮ Mouse 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well I've added Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine to the "Other countries" section. I'm not sure if there were any others but feel free to add them if there were. Jjj1238 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Portugal will most likely return: http://escxtra.com/2013/09/comeback-on-the-cards/ Xinxaa (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hungary & Latvia

It appears that Hungary and Latvia have stated that they will "most likely" participate but are seen in the "Confirmed participants" section and the "Other countries" section. If Hungary and Latvia stay in the confirmed section shouldn't Belarus, Moldova, Montenegro, and Ukraine also be moved there, or should we take Hungary and Latvia off of the confirmed section? Jjj1238 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed them from other countries section, as there are sources which verify their confirmation. Wesley ☮ Mouse 09:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro

Hello everyone! I've found this source from a week go or so and it says that Sergej Cetkovic will represent Montenegro in Copenhagen. CAN PLEASE ANYBODY check the source and see if the source is reliable enough, would be much appreciated! :-))

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

ovidarch (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.169.139 (talk)

I'm not trusting it on the basis that the article is from 9 June and the title says 'Copenhagen', when it was only announced a few days ago that it would be in Copenhagen. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Shall I wait then with confirming that Montenegro will join the party in 2014? ovidarch (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

All confirmations!

The list of the confirmed countries is in on the site http://www.esctoday.com/67826/austria-orf-confirms-participation-eurovision-2014/ . I don't know why other countries are in confirmed section as like Bulgaria, Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia, Israel, France and United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.85.177 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, based on this list and checking it against the sources in this article, I've found that exactly those countries don't have sources that explicitly confirm their participation for 2014. I think they should all be moved for the Other Countries list. Pickette (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this concentrated list from "ESCToday" is a good solution to be based on for now, and indeed doesn't mention others that were raised as questionable here. I'm a Hebrew-speaker and can tell the source for Israel does talk about "IBA"-network intention for another national final for 2014 and sending more cheerful pop, alongside dissapointment from the 2013 ballad - but still without giving any concrete plen and direct statement. On Latvia-source - "Eurovision is a priority for LTV" with only few lines details that eventually finish with "so will most likely participate" - so the broadcaster will do what it can to participate, no direct statement of confirmation. On Hungary's Hungarian-source I used English-translate and only managed to see conclusions in gibrish English in regards to the former national selection for 2013 Eurovision, with the other English source only saying "still awaiting confirmation from the broadcaster's management". Maybe the Hungarian-language article has more information for 2014 and I missed it when translating. Bulagaria source - saying that a current responsible person at the broadcaster plens to keep Bulgaria in the contest's-project but still stating "most likely participate" and that there will be new elections for the broadcaster staff so the person might be replaced. Furthermore there is a later update clarifying it's just this person's wishes with no confirmation. For France I saw a source in German and a lot of other countries have foreign-language sources or/and very thin and undecisive sources. I can only conclude that it's just best to wait for more detailed information - in English - with a title that directly says: "this and that country confirmes participation/will participate in 2014" like it is written for countries that indeed appear on the current ESCToday list. It should be asked: What is the point of putting poor or questionable sources that may be replaced soon? What is the point for foreign-language sources when a more detailed and English source will follow soon enough? I tend to avoid editing and discussing the participants for an upcoming Eurovision at such early stages because of this thin or problematic temporary available information.

Since I saw this conversation with the ESCToday-list, I gathered it will be helpful to comment for supporting it as a base-source that can solve a lot of problems, as well as contributing my knowledge and opinion for Israel and others that still appear as "talking in the air". So I also advice using the current ESCToday list, and as a temporary repeat-footnote for all countries that appear on it, while putting countries as Israel and Latvia with their sources as footnotes under the contemporary "other countries" - so they still appear for "temporary" knowledge in the article. Once those appear on another updated list from ESCToday or on the official website articles that use phrases as "confirmed" or "will participate" or on another of their reliable English partner-sites - moving them to "(Confirmed) Participants" with using this new "confirmed" sources or this updated list as footnote/s. Eventually, as for what I think best to do in few months from now - using articles from the official website or from "ESCToday" that publish full details on how the national selection or internal selection methods went during this events at December-March - as footnotes that provide external further-reading value. Hope my input can help. אומנות (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This same debate gets thrashed out year after year, and the same outcome always seems to come of it too. From previous discussions we don't just have to use official sources such as Eurovision.tv or ESCToday, a broadcaster may also chose a different medium to announce their confirmation such as via national press organisations or via their own broadcaster website. Those sources may also be used. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Latvia were suppose to be listed in the other countries section along with the other countries who have expressed they are most likely to participate but not given 100% confirmation (see thread above). As for the UK see #United Kingdom for discussion which is still ongoing but with very few project members willing to engage in the discussion. Wesley ☮ Mouse 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Hungary and Latvia" thread above examples the complications with thin and unclear sources. It was said that Hungary and Latvia appear on both "other" and "confirmed" participants sections - already problematic situation in itself, with eventually editing them out from "other" and keeping them as "confirmed". Here it seems to be agreed they were "most likely to participate" without 100% confirmation = no confirmation. Another example is with Macedonia that confirmed it's participation via a Macedonian source, with another debate here in regards to it's reliability and which was resolved with very shortly afterwards finding another affirmative source from ESCToday. I support using available local sources that aren't definite for "other countries" as I wrote, as it may take few months for other sources. But cases of local-"confirmed" reports create "confirm"-articles on ESCToday and other English sites already 1-few days afterwards. On this 2014 article, countries with local-"confirmed" footnote already have a 2nd ESCToday-footnote saying "This country confirms/participate", which also creates multiple footnotes in different languages for no reason. Waiting few days saves energy, time and occuring debates as above. In regards to ESCToday and the official website, focus on using them was merely suggested for a few months from now, when this 2 provide the best-detailed articles for each country's format and show after the event finish. And of course adding support to the ESCToday updating list as a cuurent outcome for guiding source - that greatly settles with not including those questionable countries as other users said. אומנות (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

One does need to remember though, that even the lists on ESCToday are not 100% accurate, not until the final participation list is published around December time. It is known that the list we show can be subject to change at any given time, up to and even after the final list is published. Take Slovakia a few years ago, that was a prime example where ESCToday actually published that they were informed by STV of their return. Yet STV's official website denied that fact, only to contradict themselves a few weeks later and confirm that they would indeed make their return. This is why it has been safe to use "localised" sources, as they would know more about their nation then anyone else. We wouldn't expect the BBC to announce that Russia would withdraw, or that IBA's website for Israel wouldn't exactly publish news on Luxembourg's dramatic return (hypothetical examples of course). However those respective broadcasters would publish news on their own national selection and confirmation of participating, and it is those that we can use. Naturally it would take time for their news to filter over to ESCToday to then publish globally. So we shouldn't really be waiting purely for ESCtoday to tell the world in order for us to use their articles as sources. A good article needs to use sources from a variety of websites and avoid concentrating primarily on one only (see WP:PSTS). As I said above, this debate gets thrashed about year after year, once in 2011 (1), four times in 2012 (1, 2, 3, 4) one of which even went mediation cable (5); once in 2013(1) and more recently in 2014 (1). This really needs sorting once and for all, as it is starting to become annoyingly repetitive and is wasting our time as editors. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes nothing can be accurate and certain even until the actual event. I said that I don't see a problem with reliable English sources that phrases clear "confirm/will participate" from both ESCToday and reliable local-sites - in English, which also support what you said for prefering English source in regards to Macedonia. But I still think 2 or more reliable sources are needed only if each of them adds some extra material to the others. A source from one website which is agreed as reliable enough and summerizes everything known so far should be sufficient. ESCToday rarely made any mistake or show eagerness to publish premature speculations and therefore agreed as reliable. (As a side remark, Slovakia's case equally shows that its broadcaster may have been undecided itself or purposely confusing ESCToday to create a buzz around its entry). And as I wrote, from my experiance and as this 2014 article shows, I don't remember seeing cases when it took more then few days to ESCToday or the official website to publish their own following confirmation articles after reliable confirmations from the local media. But anyway, if others will prefer keeping two or more repititive sources, so be it.

In any case, the current method creates a bunch of discussions even for the same countries over and over again because of their speculative sources that phrases titles as "ESC is a Priority" and "Not giving up on ESC", and also foreign-language ones like Hungary which still isn't known were it gives confirmation, and which anyway don't have value for the English speakers. So my offer was to include all this under compromise to generalize all articles that don't clearly say "confirms/participate", and put them under "other countries" as is for articles that have "most likely" titles. That way we still use all kinds of sources in the article with no need to poorly wait to ESCToday and with no need for specific discussions here on wethear it's safe or not to use for "comfirmed". These specific discussions create a waste of time and furthermore result anyway in some countries still appearing as "confirmed" in the article without confirmation, which hearts the article's reliability. So it still seems best to currently lean on ESCToday list and check it against English-sources that uses the key words "confirm-participate" for the article's reliability and to reduce the repititive debates for speculative sources in the future, as well as such general debates. That's the best thing I can personally come up with and contribute.

As for the final thing I suggested - adding full-detail sources from the official website and ESCToday, that conclude best the national selections after the events are done - then I will be gladly willing to do it. אומנות (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from with your outlined suggestion. However, wouldn't that make Wikipedia look as though it's favouring one reliable company (in this case ESCToday) over others that are also reliable? This is why we should openly accept and use sources from other reliable websites and not just be sticking to one (or a small handful). If a source explicitly states and verifies that a country has "100% confirmed" then they should be listed on this article as confirmed, regardless of whether ESCToday have reported it or not, or whether they appear on ESCToday's list or not. As long as a source is reliable then we should be using it. And per WP:RSUE, citation to non-English sources are allowed as long as we provide a translation into English to accompany the quote. Once an English source becomes available, then exchange the sources so that the English is in use.

I also agree that sources which state a country as "ESC is a Priority" and "Not giving up on ESC", yes they should be placed as most likely, and I never said they shouldn't be nor show any support that they should be classified as "confirmed" either. In regards to Hungary and Latvia, they were once enlisted in the "most likely" list, but somebody placed them into the confirmed section too, and by the looks of it the edit was never reverted back - and I would support anyone who wishes to place those two countries back in the most likely section. It may be worth noting too that this issue is a lot more complexed than one may have anticipated. There's the participation map that causes confusion. This map is used across multiple language Wikis. I have experienced problems in the past were I have de-confirmed a country that another Wiki stated was confirmed, purely because the source wasn't explicit enough. However, the editor at a counterpart Wiki reverts the map back to their "version" and then someone else on English Wiki notices this and ends up putting that country back on the confirmed table. We could do with resolving this matter with other Wikipedia's too, or perhaps suggest to them that they create, upload and use their own maps, and cease using the English Wiki version. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been extremely bold and placed Bulgaria, Hungary, and Latvia back with the "most likely" list which is nestled in the "other countries" section. I've also updated the map to reflect this change, leaving an annotation in the edit summaries of all relevant places which have had changes made to them, including the map, this article, and the article's navbox. Also I've placed a hidden notice within the article so if anyone does go to update the confirmed list, that they may hopefully take heed to the fact that we must only enlist countries with sources that explicitly state 100% confirmation. Anything that is dubious should be placed in the "other countries" section explaining any doubts (as long as there are source to back up the claims). Wesley ☮ Mouse 05:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Great for updating the article. On the "Hungary & Latvia" thread above it was pointed out that these two appeared on both "confirmed" and "other" (that another user made as you said), and when you wrote that they now confirmed and you deleted them from "others", I thought you look from the sources. Now I understand that you relied on the other user's claim and edit for confirmation, and removed them from "others" to solve that current duplication. With United Kingdom I think like some others that the previous conversation was just dealing with a TV-personality to make his own survey for ESC, withou connection to next ESC-participation. Also the current BBC-Blog source on the article that says "We will be in Denmark", contains only this one thin line and looks something to be cautious for. I don't have a definite opinion for United Kingdom, it just looks not stable. Anyway its all temporary and the article already looks more accurate now with your recent edit. I'm glad for your actions to work on the article's different features to move certain countries and improve the article's reliability. And yes I also thought about the participants map and how it changes all the time, but I always thought it's created and being updated by someone on the English Wikipedia, and from that all other Wikipedias copy the image and then it gets automatic updated with the colouring of countries on all Wikipedias simultaneously.

As for prefering one company like ESCToday and sticking to only a handfull of other sources, I agree for using any reliable source that state "confirmation-participation". I will just say that the problem is when all kinds of reliable sources (including broadcasters), publish all kind of general news in relation to ESC-stuff, and users may turn to connect dots and assume it approves a country's interest and towards participation. On the other hand, ESCToday, the official website - which is always preferable as the official responsible from EBU, and a handfull of others, are dealing with publishing clear-direct confirmations for a country so in this sense they solve a lot of problems. Cases of popular future events always bring a lot of eagerness to find news and desire of users to be first to tell and put it on the article. Openess to various reliable sources opens a minefield of walking between pieces of information were you don't know how to move - as similar to the discussions here for "safe to add" or "not safe to add" or stepping on a mine by putting "confirmed" in the article. And a handfull of articles provide a safe road to walk peacefully on. In any case, I'm glad for your recent actions, that there is a an agreement for the most problematic countries, and hope that this another discussion and your actions and note for using only clear confirmation reliable sources, will take notice to create a smooth road. אומנות (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting my judgement in regards to Hungary and Latvia. Despite the fact I had supported Hungary and Latvia as being "most likely", I threw caution to the wind and allowed the user benefit of doubt with their decision. But upon further review I decided to reverse my judgement and replace those countries back as "most likely". In regards to the UK, there are two parts to that thread above. It is the latter part initiated by Spa-Franks that is more vital at this present stage. In a prior discussion last year, a question was asked as to whether we should treat the BBC's "we will see you next year" quotes as being confirmation. At that time only 2 editors responded, 1 saying "yes" and another saying "no". The decision was 50/50 and with no overall majority to either choice. What I found strange this time around is, the editor who previously voted no, is the same editor who added the UK as confirmed for 2014, using an a worded quote to which they had voted against using in the past. Although on hindsight, the BBC have used that quote year after year, and always participate - so I would say it is safe to assume they will be there. Plus there are other sources with discussions about how the UK will find their next representative.

As for using only one source, an editor had previous commented a few months ago that "the policy position hadn't changed - restricting only to primary sources is against policy and doesn't make a lot of sense. The default criteria for using a source is if it is reliable, not if it is primary, secondary, or tertiary. If sources are persistently inaccurate, they should be treated as unreliable and not used at all." They went on to say that the current system is not perfect and they were open minded to suggestions on improvements but had't yet heard any that they believe would be workable. So in my view I would be inclined to say we carry on as we are, using a variety of sources. If a source says a country will 100% be in Denmark, then we use that - regardless of whether they appear on ESCToday's list or not. Afterall it is the EBU's that is official not ESCToday's. And as the EBU list won't be published for a few months yet, then we can safely say our list is subject to change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a newsdesk. Although in the world of journalism, one source is no source; several sources are verifiability, reliability and confirmation; as they back each other up. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yea the official website will give the official list and I agree and supported using sources that are reliable, with meaning of cautious to rely on ESCToday and the official website, from a different angle of purpose to try keep the article encyclopedic and not as for fast news. So hopefully now if we carry on similarly, that only reliable clear information will be used to confirm in the article, following this and the note you put, and thanks again for your recent edits. אומנות (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of that. Using different sources for citation purpose, and ESCToday and/or ESCDaily (if necessary) as a back-up to those other sources. Steers this article away from looking like a fan-based newsdesk, and back to being encyclopaedic value. Does this mean that for the first time in years we have actually resolved this headache about sources? Hooray! This calls for a project celebration - and very fitting too as the project is celebrating its 10th birthday this very month. Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I join your wish, with hoping for smooth adding of sources and overall working on future ESC articles, and a happy birthday to the project! אומנות (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it was decided to move Bulgaria, Hungary and Latvia to the Other Countries list, but I think Lithuania, Israel, France and the United Kingdom should be moved there as well. None of those countries have clear announcements of their participation as a source. That's just my opinion, if nobody else thinks they should be moved then I guess they can stay where they are. Pickette (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Pickette with similar general view, but according to the ongoing use of also foreign and current thiner articles which are considered reliable - then France, Israel and United-Kingdom seem to be okay for now. I'm sorry that it came out that before I didn't pay enough attention to other countries, but also Israel, France and United-Kingdom sources seem to eventually be more definitive. However, I also now checked Lithuania's source that bring a sitation that says they might have a budget problem and that they just don't plen to withraw. So following this discussion and the progress that was reached in regards to clear sources, I moved Lithuania as well to the other countries section. I translated the source for France as well (from Dutch) and it seems to write one line saying that France will try again in 2014. So as for United-Kingdom, Israel and France sources, which seem more confident in participation, I think it's best to leave it. Afterall its only temporary situation. אומנות (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Lithuania. The news source for Lithuania states they are not planning to withdraw. So if they are not withdrawing, then that can only mean that they will be present - d'oh! I cannot really comment on Israel. As for France, they are safe enough to be included. And the United Kingdom debate is still ongoing above, so until that has been resolved, then I think we should do nothing else to the UK's inclusion on this article. Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion above was precisely to overcome such sources that don't state definite participation, by saying things other than "cofirmed/will participateas", which I thought was understand and agreed in order to reduce ongoing discussions of attempts to speculate things. I can equally write it's obvious there is no confirmation yet as they said they have budget problems and that they don't plen to withdraw, and every year Lithuania specifically also has budget plens and say at some point they may face withdrawal because of that. "Not plenning to withdraw" is the same as Latvia's "ESC is a priority" - which both means they will do what they can to keep ESC in their plens and participate, but still not promissing anything. And please refrain from writting phrases as "doh!" which is unpleasent and looks as mockery, as you don't like it yourself. If you want to put Lithuania back already as a confirmed participant, so be it. As I said, I'm not gonna go into arguments about this as it's only temporary, and only tried to reduce the complications and the waste of time that I think can be avoided if not relying on such statements, as I tried explaining above. אומנות (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sincere apologies if you took the comment "d'oh!" out of context. It wasn't mockery at anyone, but my way of a "hand in face" expression. I was merely trying to put across that is a country has said they won't be withdrawing - then what else would they be doing, other than participating. The wording in the source is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Lithuania stated they won't withdraw, and considering that they took part in 2013, then the way I interpreted the source was that Lithuania would be present. We can establish that the source never implies that Lithuania would return, as they have never left the competition, so if they are not going to withdraw, then what else would they be doing other than participating in 2014 (although that would be subject to change if their budget prevents them from participating). Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your angle of view but to me it still seems that such source calls assumptions, as also I still look at the emphasis of mostly relying on conclusions from its previous participations as an assumption for the following year, and of-course the budget-problem detail that floats-ahead of it. Anyway, that was for the sake of the discussion about such general sources the way I see it, and if you see this source and Lithuania's last participations as strong enough to validate, then I don't mind if you prefer puting it back as confirmed, for this anyway temporary situation. It seemed you got upset when you wrote that phrase and that also why it bothered me, since I can only read it in here. I'm glad to know you meant it in a jokingly mood, and thank you for explaining. אומנות (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request submitted

As was expected, some IP's have started their edits of disruption, deliberate factual errors, and vandalism, within a matter hour hours following the lift of the previous semi-protection. I have therefore made a request to have the semi-protect reinstated but for a longer period of time.

So far today one IP has attempted to add Serbia as withdrawn, without providing any citations for verification. I have warned the user to provide such sources, and yet they continuously keep re-adding Serbia without sources in a potential disruptive manner. Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[UPDATE] - Semi-protection has been placed for a period of 3 months, expiring on 10 December. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Article lead

I don't think the lead should contain specific references to selected artists in the contest. I don't think that has been done before other than when there is a winner or when referring to the final result of the contest. In addition, there are three selected contestants so far and only mentioning two of the three seems a bit odd to me at least. So I guess in my opinion it should be removed. Pickette (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, article leads are to summarise the content from the entire article. Valentina Monetta has been mentioned in the returning artists section as she is notable enough now for the fact she has appeared twice previous, equalling a record held by Lys Assia and Cory Brokken. That is a fact worth mentioning in the lead. As for Conchita Wurst, s/he was notable from the 2012 Austrian final, and to mention the artist in the lead is justifiable enough. The last time this was done was for Eurovision Song Contest 1992. Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wesley on this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I also thought it seems appropriate for artists section, not lead, when I saw this addition, so I agree with Pickette. The details about Valentina appear with the same detail under "returning artists", so it's lead mentioning creates a duplication rather then summarize. The details about Austria's preselection can be appropriate under "artists" section that include also notable artists from preselections, besides "ESC returnes". Also, the 1992 ESC article is giving a detail about Switzerland's original entry for that same year, while Austria-2014 gives a detail about an artist that came 2nd to begin with and in another year. And the 1992 article isn't divided to any sections, so everything there is concentrated under the lead. An idea is to mention in the lead that notable/renowned artists this year are Valentina Monetta for San-Marino and Conchita Wurst for Austria (and others that may appear), without going to details why they are notable - then it looks as summerize. And with that, create general "artists" section instead of only "ESC returnes", were Valenttina already appear with her notability details, and were Conchita Wurst's 2012 preselection details can appear to explain notability. אומנות (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But the lead is not suppose to be an entity in its own right, it is suppose to summarise in brief; details that are mentioned within the entire article, including anything which is notable. Valentina's third consecutive participation is a notable fact. Conchita is a notable fact. I'm not saying this is something which would happen on every annual article, but if there is a notable artists then it is worthwhile mentioning that factual piece within the lead too - and that is within guidelines of the WP:LEAD policy. The lead content on each annual article will vary each and every year. Like I pointed out above, the last time this was done was in 1992. We cannot go deviating away from a manual of style policy, just because a couple of editors dislike the fact we're mentioning notable facts/artists within the lead. The returnees section is suitable as it mentions artists who are participating again, and avoided having them enlisted in a table format (prose was agreed as a suitable format for this particular scenario). Any notable artists who are taking part for the first time should really be mentioned in the section between "Participating countries" and "Returning artists", there is no gainable need to create a new section called "Artists". Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But I think the issue with this is who determines what makes a contestant notable enough to be included in the lead? For example, the Austrian contestant competed in a national final once almost two years ago, while the Macedonian contestant has been involved in several national finals in Macedonia and the last national final from Serbia and Montenegro. It just seems like it could complicate things as they are now and in the future. Pickette (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

May I just remind everyone that the version the article is in right now will be edited thousands of times until next years Eurovision final which is 8 months away. For now I feel that the inclusion of some of the singers in the lead is OK.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the lead is not suppose to be an independent entity, which is why mentioning names and countries of notable returning artists in the lead as brief-mention, with elaborating under a further section stays according to general manual without strongly deviating from it. As I said, the 1992-article contains one piece of prose-lead, and also adding 1958 and 1966 articles that currently don't mention Lyss Assia, Udo Urgens and other 3rd time returnees in their lead (although they should). And that a lead-section can vary from year to year weakens an agreed-style. I also agree it's problematic to decide which preslections-artist with a 1st ESC participation is notable enough to even briefly mention in the lead. I will have to agree to disagree with others in this matter. אומנות (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think in terms of summarizing the article, the inclusion of Valentina Monetta in the lead can be justified since she was mentioned as a third time returning artist in the article. However, I think at this time the reference to the Austrian artist should be removed unless the plan is to include the current and upcoming selected artists in the lead as well. I don't think anything makes the Austrian candidate more notable than the Macedonian artist for instance. Pickette (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Are some of us forgetting that we're suppose to be writing an article with the aim of getting it to featured article status? Deciding to omit all details such as notable artists from a lead only takes an article C to B classification. To achieve Good Article classification, then we need to be aiming to a standard such as Eurovision Song Contest 2012. But to achieve the highest of article rankings, then the article needs to be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It should follow the style guidelines, including the provision of a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. If we are unable to fulfil the criteria expected of us, then we're not doing our jobs properly as voluntary editors of Wikipedia. Anyhow, I have made some adjustments, including the section renaming of "Confirmed participants" to "Participating countries"; thus removing any "journalistic/newsdesk" feel from the title. This also enables us to add more detail about notable artists directly under that header, whilst keeping "Returning artists" section for any returnees. Wesley ☮ Mouse 06:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't explain myself cleary, I support mentioning also preselection-artists names and their represented countries in the lead as well as ESC-returnees (as with Conchita Wurst that you moved) - in accordance to all having notability-explenation further in the article. Like: "Notable artists this year include Valentinna Monetta representing San-Marino for the third consecutive year and "N" representing Italy for the second time. Also, Conchita Wurst representing Austria and "Z" representing Spain, were chosen internally after participating in previous Eurovision preselection shows". Then, simply going into further details at the appropriate "Participants" section as you did now. So the lead is kept for direct, general and notable things that form the article's specific ESC year, with detailing about previous ESC participations and preselections from other years - further at the article; And, including other former-preselection-artists chosen internally for ESC as notable - for enrichment and neutrality. This recent edit you made now forms the proper way that develops the article in good direction. אומנות (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

RAI shows interest for 2014

They have an ongoing poll for fans, to choose who they would like to see possibly represent Italy. It's being hosted by RAI themselves so it shows interest from Italy perhaps?

Poll link: http://apps.facebook.com/126231547426086/lbmte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.102.185 (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

They may be interested but it clearly says: 'This survey has no connection either with the announcement of the participation of Italy to the contest and to the selection criteria of our representative, which have not been decided yet.' -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Spain

Is acceptable to use Twitter as source for Spain? --Gce (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought this up, I really think not and WP:RS, especially from a Twitter account that is not from the broadcaster but from the commentator, plus it not having the verified icon. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support removing Spain as confirmed, or for the sake of compromise an avoiding arguments/edit wars; moving them to the "other countries/most likely" section. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up another possible source. Likewise to the BBC Live Blog that is being used as source for UK, Spanish broadcaster RTVE had a Live Blog during the 2013 Contest that ended with a similar "we'll see you next year" comment (http://www.rtve.es/television/eurovision/directo/). I personally would not use it as confirmation, but thought I should bring it up for discussion. And I think that, in any case, it would be a more appropriate source for the "other countries/most likely" section than the Twitter comment. Xelaxa (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it's definitely not reliable enough when the people on TV say "see you next year". Case in point: Eldar said that Eurovision 2013 would take place in Stockholm. It did not. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not people on TV exactly, it's the broadcaster's live blog like the source that is being used for the UK. It should get the same treatment that is determined for the UK, I see the United Kingdom debate has not been resolved yet. Xelaxa (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the United Kingdom, please see the discussions at #United Kingdom and #All confirmations!. Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a "see you next year" that is being said right after a previous contest shouldn't act as a source - either on TV or on the broadcaster's blog. I thought before the UK blog was specific to declare 2014 contest with making a direct message of "we will be next year". If a source is actually a blog that was held during/right-after a previous event, then the "see you next year" is a casual-greeting message to close that forum. As now I understand about this blogs-time-contexts, from what Xelaxa explained on UK and Spain, and the example of Mr. Gerbear. It's like when people finish a meeting-gathering and say "see you next time" as part of goodbye-greeting, without any realistic validation there will be a next gathering. So I agree with others (at least in regards to Spain's blog as too casual, if not also UK's one). Such previous-contest's blogs shouldn't be used as confirmation, at best should be used for temporary "other countries". אומנות (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My spontaneous reaction: If there is any doubt about the validity of the source, why not just wait for an official confirmation? Aejsing (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So, can I move Spain to Other countries section? --Gce (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes, Gce. And looking more into the UK too, I think they should also be in the "other countries" section for the time being. Wesley ☮ Mouse 10:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't know how to change the map, though. Will somebody please do that? Aejsing (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll gladly fix the map accordingly. Will have it updated shortly. Wesley ☮ Mouse 10:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Spain now confirmed? This source published today (http://www.formulatv.com/noticias/33184/coste-eurovision-no-llega-400000-euros/) says that Spain will continue in Eurovision because is very cheap compared with other weekly programs and TV series of TVE.In addition, about the selection process Leopoldo González Echenique (TVE's president) says that is too early to decide now but the final decision will be taken in the next few weeks. JoseDLG (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it may still be debatable. The article says it can be deduced from Echenique's words TVE will participate, and I personally agree it's an easy deduction simply because he doesn't even contemplate withdrawal, but he doesn't really confirm participation. Xelaxa (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Echenique does say it's too early to know the selection process, but the bit that says the decision will be taken in the next few weeks is not attributed to Echenique, the article deduces it from what has been usual in the last few years. Xelaxa (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Spain confirmed according to Esctoday (http://www.esctoday.com/68529/eurovision-2014-spain-confirms-participation-copenhangen/). Esctoday claims TVE launching its official 2014 Eurovision web page is a confirmation. Last year, I brought the same fact up for discussion, when TVE updated its Eurovision site, and rightfully it was not accepted as an official confirmation, though there was not an article from a relevant source to back it up. What are your thoughts? Xelaxa (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey should be yellow on the map. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.205.87.27 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because they will most unlikely participate, but they didn't confirmed definitively because they hope in a change of rules before the deadline. --Gce (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Hurriyet Daily News and Eurovoix.com have announced that Turkey are to launch their own version of the contest called Turkvision. It is planned to be an annual competition which will launch in December 2013, for countries and autonomous regions that have Turkish links, including Tatarstan in Russia and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in Ukraine. The semi-finals will take place on 19 and 21 December, with the final on 23 December. I've posted a thread on the project talk page to discuss whether or not we add this contest to our project scope. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia

Slovenia most likely to be in Denmark.... http://www.esctoday.com/68169/slovenia-rtvslo-will-likely-participate-eurovision-2014/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.198.94 (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Big Five" confirmed by EBU

EBU have today (20 September 2013) confirmed that "Big Five" countries and Denmark will automatically be in the grand final. I do not know if it is a confirmation or not, but I think it could be so. /Hollac16 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to provide a link to the source so it can be verified? Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are the rules for ESC 2014: http://www.eurovision.tv/upload/press-downloads/2014/Rules/EurovisionSongContest_2014_Rules_Public_ENG_20.09.2013.pdf. The rules are the same as last year regard "The Big Five" which are automatically qualified to the final with the host country. The remaining countries must qualify in one of the two semi-finals. I find it hard to imagine that France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK would give up these positions in the contest when they are enrolled in the contest rules. /Hollac16 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

They are only the rules, they are not official confirmation of their participation. The rules are merely a provision of information to cover every eventful scenario. So if 1 or all 5 of the Big Five were to confirm participation, then they would automatically qualify. But that is pending their confirmation. The rules also state that the contest is open to a maximum of 46 EBU members only, with a maximum of 20 in each semi-final, and up to a maximum of 26 in the grand final. Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New Section for Map

I saw that someone updated the map adding a colour for the "partially" confirmed countries. I thought this was a good idea but it was reverted as their was no community consensus, so what are everyone's thoughts on that? New colour? Or keep the same? Jjj1238 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A line has to be drawn somewhere. If we started to include "partially" then we'd be creating an opening for vandalism to the map itself, as people will start to add countries they "wish would return". That is why we keep it simple - confirmed, return, and withdrawn. Besides there is no such thing as "partially confirmed". A country has either officially confirmed participation, returning, or withdrawing. And it is those facts that need to be highlighted on the map (which is the current method). The list of countries who are "most likely" shouldn't (in my opinion) be included on the participation map, such facts would only confuse the general reader who is unfamiliar to the contest format. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

there is a rumor about serbia withdrawing

i read it on a forum so please try to find sources that either confirms or denies it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read a news report, and they haven't said they are withdrawing, only that they will make their decision next week, regarding participation. Patience is a virtue, I think we can allow time to wait and see what happens at next week's announcement. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Liechtenstein

I think the inclusion of these countries in the article is a bit out of place. I think any information or statements regarding their participation should be added to Unsuccessful Eurovision Song Contest applicants or whatever article better covers nations that don't have any actual legitimate prospect in entering the upcoming song contest. At this time it's clear to say that they will not be participating due to the fact that they are not full members of the EBU. For instance, citing that Liechtenstein will not be participating at the 2014 contest is odd considering their participation was not possible anyway. If their status at the EBU changes then their inclusion would make more sense, I believe. Anyway, this is just my opinion, obviously if others think that they should stay in the article then I'd be okay with that. Pickette (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

From what was decided on 30 May 2012, "if there is coverage (from reliable sources) which is relevant to the year in question, it should be included, if not, then it shouldn't. That is bare WP:V/WP:NPOV position.". As there are sources regarding those countries in connection to and mentioning ESC 2014, then that means there is A) coverage from reliable sources regarding the 3 countries; and B) that coverage is in connection to the 2014 contest for which this article is about. Wesley ☮ Mouse 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In that discussion it seemed like most people wished to limit details and be cautious with what was included in the Other countries section. But there is another layer to what I'm suggesting because the countries in question are entirely ineligible to compete at the contest in any year until their status at the EBU changes. Sources that claim Kazakhstan is allegedly negotiating with the EBU and a minister from Kosovo thinks that their broadcaster will join the EBU in time for the 2014 contest don't change the fact that these countries and their broadcasters are not members of the EBU and have no positive outlook on participating in this contest or any other future contest year until their status at the EBU changes. An article such as Unsuccessful Eurovision Song Contest applicants would cover any details much better rather than cluttering up this section on a yearly basis with countries that are not allowed to participate. Pickette (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion for those three, then also we might as well not mention any country on this article whatsoever, and just place them in their respective country articles. It doesn't work that way. This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, and everything connected to it - from the returnees to withdrawals; from débutantes to countries expressing an interest. The whole concept of writing an article is so that it covers every angle relating to its subject as long as we stick to the core policies such as coverage by reliable sources (WP:V), and maintaining an even perspective throughout (WP:NPOV). Omitting details that we "dislike" is against bare policy. And it did not seem that people wished to limit details in the way you are suggesting. It was to limit the wording, keep it brief, and then expand further in their respective country articles. Which is the way we do with every other country that participates/returns/withdraws. We keep detail brief on the annual ESC article, and expand in more detail on the respective country article. If we only kept things to the country articles, then the annual pages such as this would be stubs and not aiming towards the grand Wikipedia design of a Good or Featured article. Wesley ☮ Mouse 06:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And we are not "cluttering up" a section year after year. During these early stages the "other countries" section always appears larger then the rest of the article, purely because that section is an amalgamation of "possible debut/possible return/possible withdraw". This was to remove the terminology "possible" which violates WP:CRYSTAL and makes us sound speculative. Once countries make their decisions either way, then that section shrinks in size. Besides, that section was given good praise during the GA review for 2012 article. So if it had high standards back then, then we should be continuing with that high standard year after year. Did you read the summary outcome of that RFC was regarding the other countries section? "Other countries: Agreement that only content based on coverage specific to the year in question should be included, although finer details may need more discussion." So on that basis I say don't change what ain't broke! Wesley ☮ Mouse 06:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting it for the three countries because they are uniquely ineligible to compete in the contest. And I'm not suggesting removing details that I 'dislike', I'm suggesting it for the improvement of this article and the article which I proposed this type of information be added to. What happens with other countries and how their information is handled not relevant to this discussion because those countries are actual EBU members and they possess the opportunity to apply to participate or reject participation in an EBU organized event. Pickette (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

But you are missing the point I'm trying to put across Pickette. It doesn't matter if they are "uniquely ineligible to compete in the contest" or even if they do not yet have EBU membership. The point is all three have got news articles about them in connection to and interest in 2014 participation. And therefore we need to express that interest in a brief encyclopaedic manner on the respective article regarding the contest - which in this case is this one. And then expanding into greater detail on their respective country articles. This is what makes the perfect article - which is the main objective of every Wikipedian who contributes; including you and me. Wesley ☮ Mouse 07:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

But then this becomes an issue about vetting sources and determining what is actually an expression of interest because the article for Kazakhstan merely states that they are negotiating for EBU membership, not that they are interested in participating in the 2014 contest. And then Liechtenstein announced years ago that they were working towards EBU membership while ESC fansites speculated about their participation in the contest. I still stand by my points from earlier but even through your perspective there are still issues concerning these nations. Pickette (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The vetting of sources is not the case here. We already know as a project which sources are deemed reliable and which are not. As long as what we are citing comes from a reliable source, and we write in brief summary what appears in that citation (without taking things out of context), then there is no vetting required. I'm feeling slightly unnerved that we're even contemplating deviating away from a previously agreed outcome back in 2012 that only content based on coverage specific to the year in question should be included. If we're literally going to re-write policy and forget about consensus, then what is the point of even writing this article? To put it into a different perspective - how is someone visiting this very article for the first time going to know about Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Liechtenstein's 2014 expression of interest if we decide to not include it in this article? How would that person know that information is held on the respective articles regarding 2014 if we do not provide a summary on this main article? Wesley ☮ Mouse 07:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've looked further into each of these on a case-by-case basis and have come to the following conclusion:

• Kazakhstan - The source itself is rather vague (and my Spanish is a little rusty to say the least). By the looks of it, Kazakhstan are expressing to apply for EBU membership by 2014. If that is the case, then they would have missed the December 2013 registration deadline for ESC 2014 anyway. So they wouldn't be sorely missed if we did move their details to Kazakhstan in the Eurovision Song Contest.
  
• Kosovo - The source does state that the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs informed a Swedish TV show that were hoping to be granted EBU membership and acceptance into ESC 2014 in time. Now that does explicitly cite ESC 2014, and therefore should get a mention in the article, even though there are circumstances preventing Kosovo's debut. But it should be noted that Kosovo did compete in the Eurovision Young Dancers 2011, so perhaps there is a loop-hole that we're not aware of.
• Liechtenstein - In the source regarding 2013, it did cite that 1FLTV were hoping to apply for EBU membership and debut in 2014 (this source has been used on both 2013 and 2014 articles). This was to verify that they would not be in Malmo, but were aiming for 2014. However, upon further developments months down the line, 1FLTV have decided not to apply for EBU membership. This means that we'd be safe to mention them on this 2014 article. But the likelihood of them being mentioned on the 2015 one is very unlikely (at this current time). Unless of course there's developments that indicate they are applying or have applied for EBU membership.

So with that, I'd be happy to see Kazakhstan to be removed. But the other two, could do with staying on the article (even if it is the final year they will get a mention, pending developments which may alter their course of participation. Wesley ☮ Mouse 08:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is the criteria we have to use then Kosovo should also be removed in my opinion. The broadcaster is responsible for determining participation in the contest, not the words of a politician. This comes off as a random factoid rather than a citation of a declaration of interest. Pickette (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You've just taken what I said out of context again, or it appears that way. Kosovo's citation has reference to Eurovision 2014, so should be included on the article regarding Eurovision 2014. Kazakhstan on the otherhand does not mention Eurovision 2014, it only mentions EBU membership by 2014 - which would mean they will miss the ESC 2014 registration deadline anyway. And some broadcasters seem to take their orders from politicians anyway, and that has been proven in the past. RTK is the state broadcaster, the politicians work for the state do they not? So they can influence a decision if they so choose. Wesley ☮ Mouse 08:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That just seems like making assumptions based on the politicians opinion. I think an explicit announcement of interest from the broadcaster should be required rather than plainly citing the expectations of a minister in Kosovo. Pickette (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wesley, remove Kazakhstan but not Kosovo and Liechtenstein. Kosovo and Liechtenstein are still possible entrants apparently.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To me this just seems like a similar situation to when sources that claimed a country was most likely going to participate were being added to the confirmed participants list. I find that just a mention of Eurovision 2014 in a source to be too lax of a criteria for automatically including this info. A lot of what is being used as apparent declaration of interest is just fansites speculating about EBU applications from certain countries leading to participation in the contest. The source for Liechtenstein comes off as just a website speculating that if Liechtenstein is granted EBU membership by 2014 that they will then be eligible to compete - not that Liechtenstein is declaring interest in participating in 2014. And I wouldn't count on a politician as a viable source for whether a country is declaring interest in the contest because interest can only really be declared by a broadcaster since the competition is between broadcasters. If, for instance, a minister in Spain said that they wanted Spain to withdraw, I doubt that would be added to this article until we had word from the Spanish broadcaster about what they were planning to do. So keeping these countries here just seems like inaccurate factoids that don't really aim to inform, rather they aim more to mislead and that's just my opinion. Obviously there is nothing I can do to change something that was decided a year or two ago between three people. Pickette (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So you'd prefer we break all policy based rules for Wikipedia and just do things the Pickette way? We've to write an article that is completely neutral and unbiased, that means presenting any competing views on controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides of the topic without favouring particular viewpoints. Making sure the most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. It isn't a case of we shouldn't include them, it is a case of we'd be breaking neutrality policy if we omitted them. And forgive me, but maintaining neutrality is one of the the fundamental principal, of the 5 core pillars which we are ALL suppose to be abiding to. This debate IMHO was heading for a dead-end before anyone even participated in it. We're abiding to rules set out by a broader Wiki-community. If you disagree with the policies, then argue them at the village pump. And why do you keep insisting on calling websites like Eurovoix and ESCToday as "fansites". They are not fansites, they are established companies who provide Eurovision-related news only. If we took your perspective then any website that provides information solely on one topic, such as autotrader.co.uk which specialises in car sales would be "fansite" for car enthusiasts. So Eurovoix, ESCToday and all the others are not fansites, but specialist websites dealing purely on one topic alone. [UPD] - Oh and one other thing, you even said yourself in the last part of your opening thread "if others think that they should stay in the article then I'd be okay with that". Two others have stated they'd prefer Kosovo and Liechtenstein to stay, and agreed that Kazakhstan should be removed. So why are we still having this debate? Time to drop the stick and get back to proper work. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've raised several valid points based on the direction you took the discussion in reference to sources that mention Eurovision 2014 and the country in question and none of these points have been negated yet. Reporting fansites speculations (and yes to me Eurovoix and ESCToday are fansites) as a declaration of interest and interpreting a politicians words as a broadcaster's intent to compete in an upcoming contest seems like misleading and twisted facts. And if you have more proper work to do, by all means go do it. Perhaps others will contribute to this discussion and we'll get more opinions. I feel the need to reply to this discussion and clarify my perspective so that others know where I'm coming from versus your point of view which is dismissive of what I'm suggesting. I've learned not to expect anything to come of my suggestions when it comes to Project Eurovision months ago so don't worry, I'm sure this will eventually go away. Pickette (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never disputed that you've raised points, as I too have raised counter-points in this debate. I appreciate that you felt the need to clarify your perspective to others, but it is not my point of view that is dismissive of your suggestions, it is the 5 pillars of Wikipedia policy that dismiss your rationale - and I provided evidence for those policies to validate my point of view, which for the record is not my point of view, but the point of view of Wikipedia; because the guidance policies state so. If we were to cease using sources from your so-called "fansites" then this very article would no longer exist. One only needs to look at all the references to see that 99.9% of them are from those "fansites" as you call them. Every article relies on sources from specialist websites that deal with the specialist topic, to which Eurovision is a specialised topic. The reports are not "speculation" but are specialised journalistic reports on countries that are potential returns, withdrawals, and debuts. As these are news reports regarding the 2014 contest, then we would not be providing a neutrally and unbiased written article if we were to decide to not mention them purely because we "dislike" the content. No facts are being twisted, all facts have been covered neutrally within their respective proses. If one of the proses doesn't look grammatically correct, then re-word it accordingly so that it does address the news reports more factually (and by that I mean in regards to Kosovo and Liechtenstein; as we have already established that Kazakhstan should be removed). The "drop the stick" comment was aimed at everyone, including you and I. At times your behaviour is rather pedantic, and that has been demonstrated above. You start off with a debate and then say "if others wish the content to remain, then you are OK with that". That implies that you'd drop the debate, not continue to engage and heat it up even more by disregarding policies that are fundamental to Wikipedia. Although perhaps it is because I am the editor who is participating in this debate and has providing compelling evidence in terms of Wiki-rules that urges you to be combative? That is how it looks to me right now, and if that wasn't your intention then I revoke my feelings. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, both of you stop before this gets out of hand. I see this already veering into personal attacks. I think consensus has been established that Kazakhstan will be removed, but Kosovo and Liechtenstein remain, and I agree.

Wesley, you are giving some of these soruces way too much credit though. They are, with no shadow of a doubt, fansites, and while their reporting is definitely valuable to Project Eurovision here on Wikipedia, a lot of the stories on those sites are unreliable because they only report from already established reports elsewhere. Most of what these fansites are are Eurovision news aggregators, in essense. They are also often incredibly not neutral, depending on the writer. I've given you my opinion on this matter in the Turkvision discussion, but to expound, most of the writers are not professional journalists; they are fans who take a special interest in the contest and therefore write what they like. "Specialized journalism" or not, a lot of what's posted IS speculation, and all the writing from all these fan websites should be 'scrutinized'.

A bit off-topic, but if you followed the news following this year's contest, you'll find that a lot of these websites reported Macedonian delegate Esma saying homophobic things as fact, when their only source was a seedy tabloid that was discredited by the Macedonian delegation. That's an extreme example of these fansites being too quick to the draw and not verifying their sources, but their reporting is, essentially, as good as ours. They find a source and write what the source said. We really need to look into where these sites get their information from.

ESC Today has people contacting the national broadcasters, according to them, so they're heads and shoulders more reliable than Eurovoix, who only has one writer and whose sources are press releases and news reports. There is a big distinction. I myself write for ESC United, and I can tell you that all these fansites aren't made equal. I wouldn't cite something posted on ESC United whose source was another news article here; I'd go straight to the source. I would cite ESC Today when they themselves confirm something from the national broadcasters' reps. We can't use a blanket "these are all specialized journalism and are acceptable". Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources and which are classified as reliable enough for the project were discussed back in January 2012. May be worth relaying back to that, as there are a list of sources that were deemed reliable/semi-reliable, and how we as a project chose to deal with each of them on a case-by-case basis. Wesley ☮ Mouse 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That list needs to be updated and re-discussed as the Fan media page on the Eurovision website has changed considerably since. Eurovoix is no longer listed, for instance. Perhaps we could open a discussion? Besides, my opinion still stands: each individual source still needs to be scrutinized, you said so yourself in the case of Oikotimes on that page. All of the articles on all these fansites are self-published, so scrutiny is necessary. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 02:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally the list could do with having its own area on the project page, rather than being stuck in the archives, so that we are able to review them periodically. Plus newcomers to the project would have somewhere to refer to when it comes to which sources are safe etc. The only one which we cannot review is the banned one from that list, as that has been community banned (from what I gather). It's a website that if you tried to add as a source, you get a Wikipedia pop-up saying that it is banned. Wesley ☮ Mouse 02:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I've added sourcing and that list to the Project Objectives (as shown on the project home page. What we could be doing with though is taking a look at similar projects such as Project Olympics, for inspiration and ideas on how to better our standards. Both projects deal with grandeur events, ours being music-related, theirs being sport-related. But Project Olympics have a large collection of featured articles. Perhaps taking a leaf out of their book, will help this project grow to an even higher standard of production. Wesley ☮ Mouse 02:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If Kosovo and Liechtenstein are being kept on the article, I believe the text for Kosovo should read like this then:

• Kosovo – While Kosovan broadcaster Radio Television of Kosovo (RTK) has not voiced any intention regarding the 2014 contest, Kosovo's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Petrit Selimi told the Swedish television programme Korrespondenterna that he thought Kosovo would be granted EBU membership and acceptance into the Eurovision in time for the 2014 edition. However, Kosovo has yet to be recognized as an independent country by the International Telecommunications Union, which is a requirement for full membership in the EBU.

And I'd just like to add that I agree with Mr. Gerbear about all sources from Eurovision fansites being handled with caution regardless of what the Project deems as reliable, semi-reliable or unreliable because they are prone to sometimes being inaccurate/false. Pickette (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to phrase Kosovo's. The Minister of Foreign Affairs doesn't have that much of a say in the whole thing, and that phrasing puts the agency back to RTK.

Also I'm glad this worked out and turned into a discussion for sourcing. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 03:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In one of my statements above, which probably wasn't read, I noted that if one felt the prose for both Kosovo and Liechtenstein were not worded correctly, then all you needed to do was adjust the wording so that it produced factual evidence based on the citations being used - thus maintaining verifiability, neutrality, and brief detail to the general reader. The proposed version does read better than its current version on the article, and sticks to the facts shown in the citations too. On a different note, I do feel a bit disheartened that Pickette seems to show some negativity towards the project though. Coming out with comments like "regardless of what the project deems reliable" appears to be disrespecting the entire project members in my opinion. We build consensus on decisions. The way the statement came across made me feel as though one editor just doesn't give a toss what the rest of the project thinks, as long as it is done their way. That isn't consensus building, it just demoralises members in a bullish manner. Whatever happened to the golden rule and silver rules of society? And I do detest the phrase "fansite" it has always been a pet hate of mine. OK all the websites are Eurovision based, and only the avid fan of Eurovision is going to visit them, but for the purpose of Wikipedia article writing, calling them "fansites" just feels so wrong. They are companies trying to provide a service to people who hold an interest in Eurovision. Sites like ESCToday who are well known have been trusted as reliable by this very project for years, so why discredit them now? Wesley ☮ Mouse 04:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How's about this rewording for Liechtenstein?

• Liechtenstein – The Liechtensteinese broadcaster 1 Fürstentum Liechtenstein Television (1FLTV) had originally intended to participate in the 2013 contest, pending subsidies being sought from the Liechtenstein government in order to join the EBU. However such financial offerings were never granted. The broadcaster at the time had stated that they would try again with the aim to make their debut in 2014. On 10 September 2013, 1FLTV announced that they will not be present at any foreseeable Eurovision Song Contest until such financial support has been granted by the government of Liechtenstein.

This covers the facts shown in the citations, and also stipulates that Liechtenstein will not be present in the future, and thus means until anything new is reported, that we will no longer need to mention them on future ESC by year articles. Wesley ☮ Mouse 04:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote and I felt I had a stronger case for the complete removal of the countries. I feel like I wasn't being disrespectful but rather urging for more caution when handling fansite articles and that's a criticism I've had for a while. And I'm not sure what's so bad with referring to them as fansites, the EBU seems to do just that: [1] [2]. In regards to the rewording of Liechtenstein, I can't find a source that states they announced interest for entering in 2014, rather it comes off more as editorializing/speculation. The article at Eurovoix is citing Esctoday as their source and the article Esctoday published about Liechtenstein in 2013 makes no mention of intent to participate in 2014 [3]. Pickette (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it would be safe to say that the strong case that you envisioned was not as strong as you expected. There's myself, BabbaQ, and Mr Gerbear, who all agree that Kosovo and Liechtenstein should remain on the article, while we also agreed with you that Kazakhstan should be removed. The fundamental issue here that you, I, and everyone else on this project seem to forget at times is that we've to write articles as neutral as possible, covering every aspect relating to what it is we are writing about. If there are sources regarding a particular country for a particular year, then we would need to include it. That is what maintains a neutral perspective, as we're covering every aspect of the topic. It isn't something that you or I decide should be done, but a decision forced upon us by the wider community as it is set in stone on Wikipedia policies, and is one of the 5 pillars which we are suppose to follow religiously. You may not notice it, but I am passionate about the work done on this project, I take pride in the high standard and quality of writing throughout the articles I am involved in. That itself is evident in the fact I've got 3 GA's under my belt, with 2 more on the way, and another 8 in the pipeline. Achieving a high quality and standard is something that is part of Wikipedia's goals in life, and in order for that to be achieved requires the help from people like you and me. I would have thought people would appreciate that someone like myself thrives on keeping up that high quality - obviously I am wrong, and a high standard isn't what people are aiming for. And yes, the things you wrote did come across as disrespecting the project, and it did upset me to see you word things in that way; hence why I got all brutal in my responses, as I was protecting the project on a whole and not just the sources and content. Wesley ☮ Mouse 05:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you want to turn focus to criticizing and patronizing me? Get over yourself and move on from discussing me. I'm only making suggestions I think will bring improvement - I'm not trying to destroy Wikipedia like you seem to be convinced I am. Pickette (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Liechtenstein, the Eurovoix article was citing for its 2013 participation for a previous sentence, and should be kept to verify that portion. The wording of the ESC Today article, I would say, suffices for the cited information. Wesley's re-write is accurate, according to the sources.

Now both of you need to stop. Pickette, that is uncalled for. And Wesley, you need to realize that everyone is here on Wikipedia to help, and that consensus may change with regards to what sources are credible. and not Both of you are accusing each other of bad faith and that's not ok. We are here to discuss the project, not each others' merits nor demerits as these have no standing whatsoever in this argument. This discussion is over, consensus, and a very reasonable compromise at that, has been reached, now stop. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Gerbear for stepping in at the right time there. I feel deeply hurt at the remarks made in the comment. I'm confused as to how my comment above has been misconstrued into "criticizing and patronizing". I never criticized anyone in my comment, nor patronized. All I was trying to explain is exactly what Gerbear has said above, in that it is clear consensus has been reached; by the fact 3 editors of which I named, all agreed on keeping two nations in the article and that the other should be removed. But the fact that those 3 have clearly agreed on the same thing appears to have been dismissed, and the debate being made to continue regardless of what others have said or think. I have never implied that anyone, especially Pickette, is out to destroy Wikipedia, and I would appreciate that accusation be withdrawn immediately. It is clear in my comments above that I have tried over and over to explain that the main issue not just for this article, but all 4 million + articles, is that they need to be written in a neutral tone covering everything and anything that is related to and in connection with its subject; as long as it can be verified with sources - something which is written in black and white as part of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia - they are the core rules that each and every one of us have no other choice but to follow them as rigorously as possible. When I mentioned about the GA's I've achieved, that was to show that by me keeping to the core policies I achieved a goal that I have never envisioned - a personal achievement of which I felt proud of, so to speak. Prior to those achievements I was... how can I say this... slightly ignorant to the 5 pillars and did things my way. But when I was given some pearls of wisdom by an admin, I realised that the pillars did hold important meaning, and I started to abide to their meanings, and with that I accomplished a personal achievement when the first GA was awarded. Was that wrong to have tried to explain myself in that way in the comments above? If so, then I apologies. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Latvia

I'm unsure whether the source is reliable or not, but anyway, it claims that Latvia will be in Copenhagen and that they will select song in February: http://www.esc-plus.com/p/latvia-to-decide-on-1st-of-february/ Aejsing (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Declined - The sources looks dodgy and self-published material, as they are stating they got the information from themselves. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dansk Melodi Grand Prix 2014...

...final will be held on 8th March in Odense. (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=danish_final_heads_for_odense_in_2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.95.240 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Spain confirmed

Spain confirms participation! (http://www.esctoday.com/68529/eurovision-2014-spain-confirms-participation-copenhagen/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.95.240 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, the ESC Today article only says that TVE opened a Eurovision 2014 website, "hence confirming their participation". Are they justified in making that leap of logic? Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, that has always been the way Spain made their "confirmation" announcement. They'd launch the website as part of their confirmation. It's happened year after year, and they also inform ESCToday first too, which is a bit strange. Also don't forget that Sietse Bakker who now works for the EBU, was the guy who created ESCtoday.com almost 13 years ago. Wesley Mᴥuse 13:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbia

I would move them to Other Countries. The source used read: "Serbia should be present in Copenhagen". This is not the same as saying "will be present". Aejsing (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia joins Turkvision!

Bosnia has joined Turkvision, but it looks undecided about Eurovision. http://www.novinite.com/articles/154029/Bosnia+Snubs+Eurovision,+Joins+Turkvision Xinxaa (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no article started up yet for Turkvision, as there is still a discussion taking place regarding Turkvision at the project talk page. It would be appreciated if project members engaged in that discussion so that we can find a solution and work towards an absolute decision. Wesley Mᴥuse 12:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Poland

http://eurovisionireland.net/2013/08/30/poland-reports-on-return-to-eurovision-2014/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvlolxd (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That report is outdated, and has already been covered on the article anyway (see 'Other countries' section). Wesley Mᴥuse 12:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2013

I think the 'other countries' section should be separated into three sections based on the cited facts about their entry. We have hose who have announced they will not participate. Then those who have said they are in the process of evaluating their decision, and then finally those from whom we have heard nothing citadel, despite speculation. This would make more sense to the reader and make it easier to see what was happening. 220.246.65.205 (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Declined This has been mentioned several times. Some suggestions were to revert back to using the terms "possible", but that would make the sections sound speculative, which we are not suppose to be doing as A) we are not a news portal, we are an encyclopaedia; and B) it goes against the policy WP:CRYSTAL. The way to avoid this situation was to rename the section "Other countries" and thus we are able to house any "other country" that does not participate for one reason or another; and they can range from a country who has expressed an interest to return; a country who may be considering withdrawal; or a country who has stated they are looking into making their debut; yet neither made any definite decisions at the time, and as long as we include a reliable source citing what has been added to the list. It was only earlier this year that we have also included any country who has stated that they are "most likely" (with sources to verify) but have not made a definite yes/no decision. This current method has also reduced vandalism from editors adding countries to the "confirmed list" just because they "pray" that their favourite country will be present - so on that basis it is best to leave alone something which is not broken, as it is working perfectly fine in its current format. I hope this answers your query. Wesley Mᴥuse 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus withdraws?

http://escxtra.com/2013/10/cybc-withdrawing/ Xinxaa (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The source only states they might not participate. That isn't a 100% definitive yes/no decision. And we have already mentioned about that on the article. Although this new source could probably be added to the Cypriot piece on "other countries". Wesley Mᴥuse 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Relating Cyprus entry!

BREAKING NEWS: MONEY FOUND; NOW IT’S UP TO CYBC TO ACCEPT POSTED BY FOTIS KONSTANTOPOULOS (GREECE) ON OCTOBER 7, 2013 IN CYPRUS, EUROVISION | LEAVE A COMMENT NISOCIA, CYPRUS – A commercial broadcaster in Cyprus offered money and funds to CyBC to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Now it’s up to the narrow-minded state broadcaster to decide what’s best for them! Broadcaster SIGMA TV announced that they are willing to support financially CyBC to have a decent and proper representation in Eurovision 2014. Deputy Chief of SIGMA, Mr Dimitris Tokaris revealed the information. “We are willing to produce the national selection and the necessary expenses for the song and the artist like MAD TV did for Greece last year… it’s never too late for CyBC to change their minds, there’ still time” Mr Tokaris concluded. SOURCE: SHOWTIME-CY.BLOGSPOT.COM

from oikotimes.com and showtime cyprus

http://oikotimes.com/2013/10/07/breaking-news-money-found-now-its-up-to-cybc-to-accept/ http://showtime-cy.blogspot.gr/2013/10/eurovision-2014_7.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.108.0 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that is an interesting twist to the Cyprus saga. Worth keeping a closer eye on this in case there is a change and Cyprus do end up participating. Especially with the new twist to the Greek saga as reported by ESCToday.com (see below). Wesley Mᴥuse 16:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia - Returning artists?

Can we add Tamara Todevska under returning artists since she will be backing up Tijana? -anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.163.220 (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just added it a few minutes before your comment. I was updating the Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article with that info too. Pickette (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Greece update

ESCToday.com have published an update on Greece's participation situation. In brief the EBU have announced that: The Greek government have stated that ERT is being reconstituted and renamed to New Hellenic Radio, Internet & Television S.A. (NERIT), with Dimosia Tileorasi (DT) currently operating as the interim channel, sort of like a bridge between ERT and NERIT transitional period. According to the EBU:

1. ERT is no longer a member of the EBU.
2. DT does not meet the requirements and criteria of EBU membership, and therefore is not a member of the EBU.
3. NERIT at this present time is not a member of the EBU. However, the EBU have taken into account that this is a special case and are willing to accelerate the paperwork required and accept the Greek broadcaster’s NERIT in time for them to participate in ESC 2014, on the basis that they meet the requirements and criteria for EBU membership.

Worth keeping an eye on this as more details are released. In the meantime, do we expand the information a little bit on this article, expand in more detail on Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest, or both? Wesley Mᴥuse 16:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and yes in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency

As you can see, in the template, it says 27 countries have confirmed participation. In the opening part, it says 25. In the "participating countries" section, it says 26. And in the tables of the same section, you can count out 27. Which figure is correct? 117.0.231.144 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is normally correct. WP:AGF, editors forget to update the other areas. It isn't done purposely. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Can we accept the official site as confirmation of the participation when noone of the ESC sites writed about the confirmation of the Bulgarian participation and in the site is never cited something about their participation? --Gce (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I added that because BNT released a list of participants for the 2014 contest yesterday and they included Bulgaria in that list which I would say is a confirmation. If you think it's not explicit enough of a confirmation then it can be removed. Pickette (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ilse DeLange

Apparently, she has confirmed, and will represent The Netherlands in 2014 according to http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1022/Celebs/article/detail/3539380/2013/11/05/Ilse-DeLange-inzending-voor-Eurovisie-Songfestival.dhtml & http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/boulevard/entertainment/ilse-delange-naar-eurovisie-songfestival

Portugal

This is my personal opinion but surely Eurovoix should have stayed as the source for the Portugal news, as they actually sourced Jon Ola Sand whilst esctoday provides no source to their news. Moldova96 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A source is a source, who cares where it came from. What is the problem? Wesley Mᴥuse 13:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

To explain my reason for changing it. Eurovoix's source is quoting a Tweet from Jon Ola Sand about his excitement of RTP returning. ESCToday's source is a verifying the news direct from the broadcaster, RTP. Citing something direct from a broadcaster outweighs something from the executive supervisor. Wesley Mᴥuse 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No I was just wondering, now that you've explained it, it makes more sense Moldova96 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Turkey no return for sure.

http://eurovoix.com/2013/11/07/turkey-no-2014-participation/ Xinxaa (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Already been updated on the map. Not sure about the article though. Wesley Mᴥuse 21:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Greece's participation

Why don't you put Greece in the countries that are interested in participate but they haven't officially confirm. The head director of DT channel said that Greece will participate but they haven't officially confirm too. So put Greece with Italy , Moldova , Serbia and Slovenia. And can I ask a question? Why did you put Greece in the officially confirmed list in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeagell98 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 November 2013

Greece is complicated, ERT is/was a member, but seems to now almost gone, secondly I believe the EBU has said, that DT does not qualify to become a member. I think NERIT could become one, but as such the transition to it, has not be finalized. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See #Greece update (above). Greece is currently mentioned in the 'Other countries' section, because of the complexity of their situation. ERT is no longer a member of the EBU. DT does not meet the requirements for EBU membership (according to the EBU anyway), and NERIT have yet to apply for active membership. However, the EBU have stated that they would consider "fast-tracking" their membership application, so that they may participate in 2014. But until the EBU have confirmed they have granted NERIT full active membership, then it still stands that Greece cannot participate. The head director cannot explicitly decide that they will participate, and that's a known fact. There are EBU rules to abide to. Oikotimes even published the other day that NERIT "might" be given active membership, and an editor added Greece as confirmed based on this information, which is stupidity on the highest level to put it bluntly. "Might" does not constitute a 100% definitive confirmation. Best thing to do is wait for EBU to announce NERIT's active membership and wait for NERIT thmeselves to then say "yes they will be in Copenhagen". Wesley Mᴥuse 19:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok then , thank you .Can I ask something else? Can Greece participate with a private channel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeagell98 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Like I said, the EBU's rules are a channel has to have full active EBU membership. If they don't then they cannot participate. ERT no longer has EBU active membership. DT and NERIT have not applied yet. The EBU even stated that DT do not meet the EBU's requirements. SO we cannot add Greece in the confirmed section, nor can we add them to the "most likely" list, along with Italy etc. That is why Greece is in the "other countries" section in their own right, with a brief description providing detail as to what is going on - in an encyclopaedic manner of course. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Now can you put Greece in the "most likely" list? Mikeagell98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeagell98 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see going anywhere soon, they still don't have the fundamental EBU membership yet. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the Greek television station has not yet received approval. So they should not be added until confirmation of participation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurovoix said that Greece is returning is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.68.47 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurovoix are quoting Oikotimes. And yet both sources still read that Greece are waiting EBU membership. It is a known fact in Eurovision rules that a country needs to have full active EBU membership. If Greece still do not haver such membership, then how cane they be confirmed? Even the EBU have confirmed that the deadline is 22 November for all countries, yet they are allowing Greece special rules until 31 December to get a broadcaster with active membership. Greece need to be removed as confirmed, as we're showing factual errors. Wesley Mᴥuse 03:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. See under 'Other countries'. I'm unable to change the map accordingly (Slovenia and Greece). Aejsing (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - D97v (talk · contribs) removed Slovenia, and Politikeren (talk · contribs) removed Greece from the map. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that Greece could be added to the map of participating sites since there is participation in accordance with this new source confirmed seems agrees the EBU http://www.madata.gr/diafora/media/318625.html. Besides the DT (Dimosia Tileorash) and other property channels as confirmed participation and talk now about who will represent the country in the contest.Moreover NERIT will be open almost from the beginning of 2014, so according to sources we could add and Greece on the map. Also, my suggestion is confirmed here http://www.esctoday.com/participants/. Jonh143 (talk 4:17 , 31 December 2013 (UTC)

NERIT and DT have still not been confirmed as members of the EBU, plus the source you've given is in Greek and ends in a semicolon ';' which in Greek is the equivalent of a question mark '?', thus a question not a statement, and translated includes; 'would not accept' and 'will not pay subscription', also ESCToday have not indicated on their homepage that Greece is in. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're right, sorry, but that said all Greek citizens and employees of DT and other private stations in Greece. OK

Seems that romania is withdrawing

http://oikotimes.com/2013/11/16/is-tvr-withdrawing-from-esc-2014/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Oikotimes are semi-reliable. Secondly, the source's headline reads "Is TVR withdrawing..." which makes it more questionable and uncertain. Best to wait this one out until more reliable confirmation is published. Wesley Mᴥuse 16:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Even the Oiktimes say the information is not correct in their last sentence, which reads "There is no official TVR statement at the moment". So please, GRAHAM2109 (talk · contribs), cease re-adding Romania as being withdrawn. Thanks. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria is withdrawing

BNT, Bulgarian broadcaster, released a statement confirming so: http://escxtra.com/2013/11/bulgaria-not-entering-in-2014/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.133.149 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

poland

Poland returns to eurovision 2014 http://www.escflashmalta.com/index.php/music-news/international-music-news/item/3420-eurovision-2014-some-return-as-some-withdraw

Wording in the source says "seems like". This is still speculation. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But maybe you can place it to " countries that will most likely participate, like you did by slovenia

Can do. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on Talk pages with ~~~~! Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to look for a better source right now that says they'll make their decision on Monday. The ESCFlashMalta mention didn't really give enough info to be cited.Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why Poland has not yet determined its position??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.43.75 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia

I removed Slovenia from the list of confirmed countries as the source[4] says that while the application has been submitted, a final decision will be made in December. This unambiguously says Slovenia's participation is not confirmed. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nontheless, Slovenia is not removed from the list. Only the source to it. Aejsing (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay so now Slovenia is not in the confirmed list but the map still has them confirmed. Can someone sort this out? Either they're confirmed for now or they're still on the maybe pile with Poland.Tadzzo (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Romania (like Slovenia) can withdraw

This source (in Italian) states that Romania applied, but that 26th November there will be a reunion of TVR board to verify if there are funds for ESC participation, and if there aren't the participation will be retired; so, also Romania have to be removed from list of confirmed countries and replaced on list of other countries. --Gce (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this source (dated 19 November) may be of help in clearing up any questionable participation areas, especially when there are multiple sources that say "yes to participation" and others that say "no to participation". Although you may want to note that ESCToday go on to published subsequent reports (both dated 22 November) regarding Moldova and Romania as both confirming. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon reading the Italian source provided, it states that as things currently stand, Romania is a confirmed. But we all know that, despite the official deadline having passed on 22 November, the EBU have stipulated that any country may still withdraw between now and Christmas without incurring a withdrawal fine. So we should ideally leave Romania as confirmed. If they later decided to withdraw, then we can update the article accordingly. But not before, as we would be speculating. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

add that greece and slovenia have confirmed participation Jkstankowski (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - See discussions #Greece's participation and #Slovenia above as to why Greece and Slovenia are not added as confirmed. In accordance to the Eurovision rules, for Greece to participate they need a TV staion that has full active EBu membership. Their application is still under review by the EBU. Until the EBU grant them membership, then we cannot place them as confirmed. This source also confirms that Greece and Slovenia have yet to confirm. Wesley Mᴥuse 02:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria

If we're taking no action on Greece nor Slovenia, surely we should do the same for Bulgaria since they said they welcomed the extension? I realise that they may just be saying this to make people stop asking, but it's still not for sure.194.46.108.124 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria have not got an extension. The EBU have only granted Greece a special extension. The deadline set by the EBU for registration was 22 November. However, the EBU will allow any country who has say "yes" the opportunity to change their mind before the 15 December. By which time the official participation list will be announced. Wesley Mᴥuse 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He's writing about a general deadline extension (like reported here). --Gce (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And how many times have we established that Oikotimes are not always trustworthy with their reports. They've been proven many times in the past to have published factual errors. No other source mentions a deadline extension for all countries. The EBU have already stipulated that the deadline is 22 November 2013 to register an application, with Greece been granted special permission to be allowed extra time, the EBU also state that any country who has applied by 22 November may still withdraw their application before 15 December without incurring a fine. Any country that withdraws after 15 December will face a late-withdrawal fine. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sietse Bakker from the EBU said that the deadline extension was false news. Just thought I'd mention that in addition to the above. Pickette (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• 22 November Bulgaria withdrew.
• 22 November Slovenia makes application - note the source quotes

  "The deadline for countries to submit their applications to the EBU in order to participate at the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest concluded today 22 November. Applicants have until December 15 to withdraw their application without a penalty. Thus the list of participating countries can still change. The official list of the 2014 Eurovision participating countries will be released by the EBU by early January."

• 23 November Greece makes provisional application, pending their EBU membership - note the source quotes

  "The deadline for countries to submit their applications to the EBU in order to participate at the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest concluded yesterday 22 November. Applicants have until December 15 to withdraw their application without a penalty. Thus the list of participating countries can still change. The official list of the 2014 Eurovision participating countries will be released by the EBU by early January."

• 23 November Provisional applicants list is announced. Note again the same quotation

  "The deadline for countries to submit their applications to the EBU in order to participate at the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest concluded yesterday 22 November. Applicants have until 15 December to withdraw their application without a penalty. Thus the list of participating countries can still change. The official list of the 2014 Eurovision participating countries will be released by the EBU by early January."

  .
• So this "deadline extension" isn't an extension as such. Just that countries who are applicants for participation now have until 15 December to change their mind. It does not state that any country who is not an applicant may also be allowed to apply. The fact that we're trying to assume it does puts us into speculation and potential original research. (edit conflict) Thanks Pickette for clearing that up too. I thought it might be false. Purely for the fact it all stemmed from a user asking a question on Facebook. Social media, can be dangerous sources if not read carefully, lol. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would be wise of us to mention in prose about the application deadline and "change of mind" deadline. And the fact that the list is still not confirmed until the official publication is announced in January? Wesley Mᴥuse 23:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I only reported an explaination of what the other user is writing for help you to understand what he/she's saying. --Gce (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Gce, my apologies, I did understand that you were only reporting an explanation of what the other user was writing about. I was merely adding extra emphasis on your explanation. Purely to show how unreliable Oikotimes have been in the past, and also what other sources have explicitly stated about this alleged deadline extension. My comments above were for an informative (FAQ) perspective and not aimed at anyone in particular. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Motto

According to ESCToday, Danmarks Radio have revealed they they will be using social media aspects in next year's contest and are going to be using the hashtag element within the motto. I seem to recall a while ago when we added the hashtag that there were mixed reviews on whether we should be doing the same. I'm wondering now that there's more details if we should now revert to using the # symbol. Normally I'd be bold and add the details anyway. But recently when I get bold, some have frowned upon my actions, so I'm addressing it here first, then I can't be blamed for ownership. Wesley Mᴥuse 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision 2013 winner to perform at Eurovision 2014

The EBU have confirmed that the winner of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013, Gaia Cauchi of Malta is to perform her winning entry at Eurovision 2014. Question is, which section of the article would we add this too, as this is the first time a winner of JESC has been invited to perform at ESC. Wes Mᴥuse 23:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Add it to the infobox on the article. And make a small mention of it in the lede for now. We can add more info when the contest is coming closer and more information will be known.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't know though to what capacity she'll be involved in this contest. I wouldn't list it as an interval act until there is more info. I wouldn't add it to the lead either; it's probably more appropriate to mention it somewhere in the Format section and then wait until there is more info. Pickette (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to mention in the main article, then we have to mention in brief in the lead section too, per WP:LEAD. Lead's summarise the article content. And although there's no details as to which part of the contest Gaia will perform, the chances are it will be an interval act. As it is common factor that the opening acts are generally (and have been for many, many years) solely for the previous winner to reprise their winning entry. Wes Mᴥuse 12:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no mention of any of the interval stuff in the lead of the previous year's contest at any point while those details were being announced. At this point it seems like too insignificant of a detail without more info. Plus, they don't explicitly say she'll be an interval act, we shouldn't make assumptions until it's certain. Pickette (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There should have been really. Why there were omitted, I cannot say. But per lead, we are suppose to summarise the entire article. And I never said we should make assumptions either, just pointing out an observation based on previous contests. Apologies if there were confusion in my prior comment on that matter. Anyhow, back to the main point, there's this which also mentions about the JESC winner performing at ESC 2014. A new editor boldly went and added the info as an interval act. I have reverted their action and invited them to take part in this very discussion. Maybe they know of some source that verifies this interval situation? Wes Mᴥuse 12:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The article you provided is also pretty vague about her participation in this contest though. I would just write in the format that the EBU is giving the opportunity to the winner of JESC 2013 to perform at the 2014 ESC. It seems that once they have things hammered out they will announce more info which would then allow us to better integrate that into this article. About the lead, I'm under the impression, after checking out the Wikipedia guide, that the lead summarises the most important points of the article. So is this significant enough to be added to the lead? Pickette (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The EBU link that I provided first states Gaia will perform in Copenhagen. The second link from Junioreurovision.tv was an earlier report explaining changes to JESC and that the winning entry would be invited to perform at ESC. As the EBU link is more recent (as in dated yesterday) and that states she will be in Copenhagen, then we have the fact there. As for the lead, personally I say yes it does have significance. This is the first ever Maltese entry to have won any EBU organised contest. That is a major achievement for any nation in itself, and should warrant an inclusion in the lead, and it is the first time in Eurovision history that a Junior winner has been invited to perform their winning entry at a senior contest. Wes Mᴥuse 13:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• 4 November JESC supervisor and the steering group informed press of the change to invite the winning country to perform at the following ESC. Whether this will be an regular thing is unclear.
• 30 November The EBU confirm that "as part of [Gais's] prize, she will perform the song at the Eurovision Song Contest in Copenhagen next year.". Wes Mᴥuse 13:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think that makes sense. Pickette (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Pickette. I don't even know if I'm making sense to myself at the minute. I need to get some rest. 32-hours being awake is not good for the body. I wish someone told me sooner how stressing organising a wedding was! lol. Wes Mᴥuse 13:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Poland

http://www.esctoday.com/69854/tvp-poland/ Took them long enough but there it is Tadzzo (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but we're already a few steps ahead of you. Check the article, lol. Wes Mᴥuse 14:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgia unsure?

According to this article (http://12points.tv/e-daily/item/2269-e-daily-%7C-paula-ovi-are-coming#) the Georgian participation in ESC 2014 is unsure. The 2nd section reads:

"++ Georgian participation unsure - GBP, the Georgian national broadcaster will have a new Director General in January, and this fact brought some hurdles into the way of the country’s participation in Copenhagen. Currently an interim Director General is responsible for GBP, but is not in a position to sign off large costs – including the ESC participation fees. GBP will be working until the deadline to secure their place in Copenhagen."

ESCXtra have also written about it: http://escxtra.com/2013/12/gbp-touch-and-go-for-2014/. Should we move Georgia to Other Countries? Aejsing (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

They've confirmed participation already, so I believe the only reason Georgia should be moved is if they give a definite no, as there are other already confirmed countries such as Romania in a similar situation. Jjj1238 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How to format the logo?

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=presenting_theme_art_of_copenhagen_2014 - The EBU have given us our logo. I think it's terrible, personally, but oh well, this isn't a forum. How on earth are we going to format it? Spa-Franks (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How about using this version from DR's official Eurovision Twitter-profile? :) https://twitter.com/escdk14/status/413398808064569345/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend not using the Twitter version, but rather the version on DR's website, because the way Twitter compresses images is horrible. This is my official proposal (I just made the background transparent and resized everything to a Wikipedia-friendly size). Either way, we'll have to set the width to 300px in the infobox so that the generic logo will still be readable. I didn't upload it straight away because I need to know whether there's anyone who can remake it in SVG. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  22:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 

I could give it a try, but it would take some days, but a temporary PNG could be uploaded. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, take your time. I've uploaded my version for the moment. Does anybody else think that it looks just too big at 300px, though? —  Andreyyshore  T  C  23:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

5.54.151.113 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. LittleMountain5 21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

5.54.151.113 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)i want to add something

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please make your request in a "change X to Y format", and provide reliable sources for verification. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ukranian Controversy

Less than 2 hours after the Ukrainian national final a number of acts have protested the results of the national in which Mariya Yaremchuk won with the maximum of 24 points. Mariya won both the jury and televote, but the televote was by a massive margin of 2,308 votes. The allegations surround what appears to be phone line blocking. The voting lines for a number of participants were supposedly blocked meaning that the votes were going to Mariya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.179.76 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Another year, another Ukrainian controversy, however we would need a reliable source to prove this. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 14:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The withdawing of Cyprus is sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.6.38 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)