Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Bulgaria

On Twitter, Bulgarian broadcaster BNT announced that they have the intention to return, but that a final yes/no will not come earlier then September. Could this be added to 'Other Countries?'

Source: S01, S02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.165.103 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Twitter and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 13#Twitter as sources. The use of Twitter as a source has to be with caution and only in extreme circumstances. This isn't extreme enough, sorry. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

S03 S04 As you said before, Twitter is only for extreme circumstances, then there are 2 links from 2 websites which prove that Bulgaria has an intention to return in 2016. Wikays (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wikays:, yes there are 2 other sources. But look at them both more closely. The headlines end with a question mark (?) which may indicate that both websites are still uncertain. So we have to be careful that we are not going against WP:CRYSTAL based on the speculative report of not one, but two websites. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

However you seem to be confused because some people stated that Andorra wouldn't return in 2016 but that wasn't a viable source. Then our sources seem to be more viable than the other... :/ Wikays (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course the interrogation mark denotes that nothing is sure. But still. The last sentence of the source from eurovision.bnt.bg proves that BNT has an intention to return and probably plans to return.

And in fact, if you had read the tweets, you would have seen that they do have plans to return, even if they don't know yet if they will be able to. And according to their twitter account, an answer will be given in September.

And... Speaking about Andorra, I also don't understand why it is on the page. Once it was there. And then, it has been removed because the source was a blog that wasn't judged viable. Eventually, it is back, with ESCUnited as a source, but ESCUnited is sourced with the same blog. So why would ESCUnited be reliable if their sources is not ? Can someone explain ?

Yoyo360 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What is an "interrogation mark"? Did you mean, "question mark"? Anyhow, if the ESCUnited source that is citing Andorra are also using the same blog, then Andorra should be removed. There are strict guidelines on citations; including reliable sources, verifying content, no original research, how to cite sources, and blogs are not sources. Also the use of ESCKaz and ESC+Plus websites are now banned by ProjectEurovision for various reasons. And Yoyo360, please read WP:Twitter and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 13#Twitter as sources; which explain why Twitter cannot be used as a source. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

http://eurovision.bnt.bg/why-bulgaria-is-hosting-jesc-2015-but-is-not-taking-part-at-eurovision/ the last sentence is "However, we are working on alternative solutions and we hope that in 2016 Bulgaria will be finally back where it belongs!". It shows : firstly, that BNT has an intention to return, and secondly that they are working on it. Why wouldn't it be a viable source ?! It is from an official website of BNT, not from Twitter. And the question mark in the title is just because the title IS a question. There is absolutely no reason to refuse it. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

EDIT : And, as I think about it @Wesley Mouse:, the source about Croatia in the article also has a headline finishing with a question mark. Then we shall remove it according to you ? No. Because it is viable. Then, I don't see the point in refusing an article from an official source (if BNT is not official, then what is it). You don't own this article you know. Wikays and I asked you about those sources because discussion is much more used on English than on French Wikipedia (about Eurovision) and because there already was a "Bulgaria" section on the talk. Seeing your reaction, you probably would have removed the modification if I (or Wikays) had put in on the page.

Yoyo360 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: now you are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Not a good move, I'm afraid. I have never even said that if a source has a question mark that it should not be used whatsoever. So please, stop putting words into my mouth that I have not even used. What I said was that a question mark may indicate a level of uncertainty, and that we had to be careful with such sources and make sure we have read the entire contents of the source to make sure it does not fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL. I never said that a source using a question mark should not be used at all. And stop with the attacks, and accusing people of ownership. Remember that you are to assume good faith, and not doing so is actually bad faith thing to be doing.

What both you and Wikays asked was about Twitter. I, and it is all there in writing, said that Twitter per guidelines at WP:Twitter, which is very explicit in stating that Twitter should not be used "as an external link". Twitter as a reliable source should only be used "sometimes", as they can be useful as a primary source. But we have to take into account the "primary, secondary, tertiary source" policy. Everything we write has to be verified by the use of "secondary sources", and only use "primary sources", if there are conflicting verifications between many secondary sources. The tweet is from a primary source (not allowed to be used), the website you linked to above is from a primary source (again, not allowed to be used). The link for Croatia is from a secondary source, which is citing their information from a "primary source" (this is allowed, per the verification policy). Now do you understand? I think you need to learn a bit more about Wikipedia, its policies, and verification rules; before making the same mistake of false accusations towards other, in the near future. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And just to correct your mistake, Yoyo360. I never said that the source for Bulgaria could not be used. All I said was the tweets could not be used. So when you are ready to apologise, then I shall be waiting with open arms. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: That is not exactly what I understood because you were keeping on saying that we had to be careful, and so on, but you didn't mention the fact that is was a viable one either so I thought you were trying to say that it wasn't okay. Moreover, I sometimes have difficulties to keep calm (for real), and maybe I misjudged what you wrote because of that. So... Yep, I'm sorry. Really. I'll got the lesson for next time. So. Just to ask it once for all, is it a viable source or not (to be sure) ? Yoyo360 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: The BNT source is viable. However, it is also a primary source, which as I said above we do need to take into account WP:PSTS. As there are no other sources, other than twitter (which we cannot use), then it should be fine to add Bulgaria to the "other countries" section. But keep a look out for secondary sources about Bulgaria, which will make things come in-line with the primary, secondary, tertiary sourcing policy. P.S. apology accepted. Wes Mouse ✒

Thank you @Wesley Mouse:. There's also the ESCUnited source (the no. 4 in this discussion). Maybe it is okay too ? It is a secondary one, citing a press release from BNT about ESC 2016. Yoyo360 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: of al the sources posted in this thread, S01 and S02 are from twitter, and are not viable. S03 is from the broadcaster, BNT, making it a primary source, and is only viable if there are secondary sources. As we also have S04 from ESCUnited, then that make it the secondary source which is highly viable and very safe to use. Wes Mouse ✒ 23:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Which means, if I'm not mistaking, that we now have all the cards to put Bulgaria in the article while staying in wikipedia guidelines and criterias. Yoyo360 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Using the source #4, then yes. But only adding the content to Eurovision Song Contest 2016#Other countries. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Andorra on map

Andorra should be colored yellow on the participation map. A source under "Other countries" says that Andorra will not participate 2016. --SO2 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpaceON2: I've renamed this section, so that it does not become confused with the other separate #Andorra thread above. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I missed that. Thank you. --SO2 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree though, the map needs to be corrected. I would have done it myself, alas I'm on a Chrome OS netbook, with limitations. Roll on 29 July and Windows 10 which I'm waiting for so I can get a new laptop that won't crash on me 24/7. LOL Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the map. And one more thing: you should write Israel into the list of provisional participants. I've found a source for them. D97v (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Andorra on the map should be grey. The original source belongs to a blog website, and is not allowed per WP:BLOG. ESCUnited then publish their report based on the same blog, which means in effect we cannot use ESCUnited's source, as they are citing the blog that we cannot use per WP:BLOG. Please could someone amend the map accordingly. I would do it myself, but I'm still using Chrome OS, and it doesn't facilitate the use of Inkscape. Thanks. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just like Wes said, can someone please color Andorra grey on the map of participating countries. --SO2 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpaceON2: I'm back up and running with my laptop, new hard drive the lot. (hallelujah!) So I have gone ahead and corrected the map. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --SO2 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Second time host

Technically the Globe Arena won't be only the third venue to host the contest twice as several venues have also done it twice, or in the case of the Point Theatre in Dublin more. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_host_cities_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest

2A01:E35:1384:A040:AC2D:D642:DA42:AC4A (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request declined. We cannot use Wikipedia to cite sources of information, per WP:CIRC and WP:CWW. Also the Point Theatre was the host venue three times, 1994, 1995, and 1997. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Anyone who knows what happened to all the pictures? The flags? The logo? The map? --SO2 (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They are still visible SpaceON2. Have you tried purging the page to refresh it? Or perhaps clearing your browser history so that it clears away any junk? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Something must have been wrong with my CPU and iPad. They do that sometimes... Thanks! SO2 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

more information have been published on the norwegian selection

according to norwegian newspapers there will be a national final but, the number of participants is still unknown. oslo spektrum is likely going to be the venue again as it have hosted all norwegian finals at least since 2005. the date is unknown but i think that someone should write an article with the information that is known.84.213.45.196 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Perhaps this should be posted at Talk:Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Hi! I'd like to ask a question: I'm planning to write e-mails to the EBU member broadcasters to get some information about their plans for ESC 2016. If I get an e-mail in which the broadcaster confirms its participation and then I make an image of the e-mail with Snipping Tool, can I use the image here as a source? (Sorry for the possible mistakes.) D97v (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@D97v: unfortunately no. Doing so constitutes original research. We are an encyclopaedia after all. We are not news reporters. I'd leave that job to the Eurovision websites. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And if I send the information to a reliable site? For example Eurovoix? D97v (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@D97v: Then it becomes self published research, and potentially paid editing (if Eurovoix or any other reliable site were to pay for the material). Also as you have stated that you would consider "sending the information" would potentially mean any websites you sent the information to, would be placed on the banned sources list. Besides, I'm sure the Eurovision journalists have already emailed all of the national broadcasters, anyway. So just leave it in the journalist's capable hands. Last thing we want is for you to end up blocked for something that would become regrettable. Wes Mouse ✒ 21:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. :) Then I won't do it. D97v (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Germany

There are no official annoucements made for the German Pre-Selection. NDR already denyed this information... Meridian98 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. At the time there was no update about the information being incorrect. And naturally, people do not check already cited sources for further updates. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning to the Portuguese participation

Portugal will never win or get a good place in this stuff anyway, since no serious singer considers participating in the Eurovision here. RTP has a huge deficit, and has been contested for continuing to participate. I'd guess Portugal will quit ESC and participate in any other contest.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:NOTFORUM. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@AxG: Yes, you're right, it's not relevant, it was just an opinion. Delete it all, if you wish. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but, how dare you to say that about the Portuguese participation? That's absolutely nonsense ! Wikays (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK @Wikays: there is no need to be jumping on the bandwagon. AxG dealt with the situation and pointed out that this is not a forum, nor a place for POV-ing. So to harass matters even further is not acceptable. Deny all recognition and don't add fuel to an already died out fire. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's ok, but why didn't you delete this topic then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikays (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikays: topics do not get deleted. Are you familiar with talk page guidelines? Even Editing or deleting topics created by someone else is not allowed, and can be sanctioned with a block. All you had to do was read the discussion, notice that it had been resolved by another editor, and just ignore the topic. Closing it is not required. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't notice itWikays (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Map of Australia

I think we should move the map of Australia from the top right corner to the bottom right corner (here is a sample) because Australia is in the southwest on the world map not in the northwest. The same for the ESC 2015/Participants/Winners maps. D97v (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

East, not west. But anyway. I personally think it is a pretty good idea. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Yoyo360. It might be a very good idea if you do that. Wikays (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Talking about Australia, it was meant to be a guest country. I know the idea of the country being a permanent country has been emitted, but in the case Australia doesn't participate anymore, will it be marked in yellow or just erased from the map ? Yoyo360 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I wanted to write east instead of west. Sorry again. And if Australia won't participate in Stockholm they should be removed from the map because they were only special guests this year. D97v (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: - the proposal will cover up another country that is part of the EBU (although technically we're doing the same with Russia, but not in the same greater deal as making Jordan disappear completely). Also we cannot just remove Australia from the map. We don't know if they may become a permanent member (as reported that the EBU are looking into doing). If they do not come back, then we need to retain historical content, as the map each year also shows countries who participated in the past, but are not in a particular year. So we'd basically have Morocco and the likes in yellow, but Australia would just be removed because we have forgotten about and don't care about them. Sorry, folks, but it is a very bad proposal no matter how you look at it. Like the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is actually a reason why Australia have been placed in the top-right corner. because if you look here, there is a blue information icon in the bottom-right. Repositioning Australia will make them covered up by the blue icon symbol (which has to be located bottom-left). And @Yoyo360:, yes if it means Australia never participate again, then they would still remain on the map, but coloured in yellow year-after-year, just like Morocco has since 1981. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The map of Australia won't cover up Jordan as you can see it on the sample. Why isn't the smaller map of Australia good? The current map is very ugly with this big map. The only problem would be, as you've said, the blue icon. D97v (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@D97v: I assume you meant to post your thread at the bottom? Placing it where you did split my thread in two, and made it look like you were arguing with yourself. But the blue dot is the issue, and from when I gather it cannot be placed elsewhere other than the bottom-right corner; thus obscuring Australia if they were to be repositioned. But to say its current position is only "ugly", is a personalised point of view. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. in case you had forgotten, we're not here to make things look "less ugly". Wes Mouse ✒ 18:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to be obtaining a habit of forgetting the fundamental principles of what Wikipedia is all about. There are so many things needed to be taken into account, such as manual of style, accessibility, and what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps if we took a little time to check into all these things beforehand, then we'd be saving ourselves time wasted on debates like this. Plus we're talking about a map that would impact ALL other articles, so this is not the venue to have raised the matter. Anything that will impact to a greater scale, should be raised at Wikiproject Eurovision. Project members really need to remember to be checking project space and using it more often. That's what it is there for! Wes Mouse ✒ 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

One last question: Is it possible to make two maps? One with Australia and an other without it. Or one with Australia on the upper right and the other with it on the bottom right. In the Hungarian Wikipedia there isn't any problems with the blue icon because it's on the upper left corner. D97v (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to import it on Commons under another name I guess. Yoyo360 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is where everyone is getting confused and clearly not understanding the difference between Localised Projects and Commons. Files uploaded on Commons can be used across all Wikimedia spaces, included Wikitionary, English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Commons itself. Local projects are those commonly known as "language Wikipedia", such as English, Hungarian, Russian, etc. We can upload files to English Wikipedia, without then being at Commons. It just means they are local files to English Wiki only. I'm sure Hungarian Wikipedia has the same option to upload files directly to their area without having to use Commons. If so, upload a different map over there, as it will then be "local" to Hungarian Wiki only. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I'll do it. Can I give them the same name? D97v (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@D97v: if you are going to duplicate onto commons, then no, it is impossible to give the same name. If you are going to upload a local version on Hungarian Wikipedia, for the purpose of usage on Hungarian Wikipedia only, then why not give it a name in Hungarian. I'm sure that would be more relevant than saving it under an English name. It would be like going to an opticians and asking them to check your teeth. Wes Mouse ✒ 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Here at English Wikipedia, if we want to upload a file to be used locally on English Wikipedia only (and not globally via Commons), then we'd do so by using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Looking at Hungarian Wikipedia, theirs is hu:Speciális:Feltöltés. Perhaps uploading there and following the instructions. Wes Mouse ✒ 21:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything is clear now, I want to upload them only to the Hungarian Wikipedia. Thanks again. :) D97v (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are some information about Italy

The website, Eurovoix.com has published some information which are concerning the national selection of Italy : The Festival of Sanremo. Could we notice it in the section of the "most likely to participate" ? Thank you ! Here are the source : http://eurovoix.com/2015/08/11/italy-sanremo-final-february-13/ Wikays (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think San Remo is one of those odd things, I think we don't count it as the national final, but I'm sure @Wesley Mouse: could clarify. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the same case as Albania, I would think. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've made the connection between those two countries, and I think that Italy should be included in this category. Wikays (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget it was the San Remo concept that brought about the Eurovision Song Contest. And Italy still held the San Remo throughout the years they were absent from ESC. I'd treat this information in the same we have for FiK (Albania). Note them in the other countries stating that an official decision by the broadcaster is still undetermined. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Another thing, we shouldn't have had a section entitled "most likely to participate", as that goes against WP:CRYSTAL, something which the project agreed to avoid such speculative terminologies, so that we are seen as "following policies and guidelines". That is why we created the "other countries" section, so that all countries who had news published, but nothing to say if they are 100% confirmed participation, had a section to be housed into. It also removed the use of terms like "possible debut/return/withdraw" and "most likely". Wes Mouse ✒ 14:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Albania

It turns out that Festivali i Kenges is indeed how Albania is going to select its act for Eurovision, as the actual website wrote an article on it. Can we add Albania to the list of participants then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.160.174 (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The source does not outright say they will be using FiK to find the 2016 entry. All it says is that FiK has been used to select Albani's entry in the past, and that "further information on the semi-finals and final shows of Festivali i Këngës, which have usually been broadcast live in the second half of December, as well as on Albania's participation in the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest, will be announced in the upcoming weeks. That means it is still unknown if Albania will use FiK to select their entry at this stage. Best wait for official participation confirmation before adding them to the list. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Presenters

New news is published about possible hosts: http://eurovoix.com/2015/08/19/sweden-petra-mede-mans-zelmerlow-to-host/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.165.103 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We cannot accept "possible" as it falls under speculation. Wes Mouse ✒ 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)