Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Terminology

After some thought following the resent (and possibly still ongoing) dispute about whether there are 23 confirmed nations or 40 confirmed nations for Eurovision 2012, it occurred to me that there could possibly be some confusion between confirmation and expression of interest. Most of us know that each respective national broadcaster has the final say on whether or not they intend to participate in Baku, Azerbaijan. And those countries in turn become part of an official confirmation list which is published by the EBU normally around December/January.

However, the confusion stemming here is the difference between a national broadcaster releasing plans for their selection procedure, and that of a broadcaster expression their intentions to go about participation. The main article as it stands shows a list of "participating countries"; yet one a few of those have released details on dates of their national selections and/or artists. These countries are safe to be classified as "confirmed", and will no doubt appear on the list of confirmed participants to be released later this year. Yet some of them who have yet to release details of their national selection process, still have a chance to withdrew their intentions of participating before the deadline, and are therefore expressing an interest. With that in mind, the so called "fake list" of 40 nations published by News.az and Guns.az could be treated as a list of nations who have expressed interest in being present in Baku next May. This is also apparent when an article published by Eurovision.tv and ESCToday.com both state that at least 40 nations are expected to be in attendance, and plus ESCKaz also stating that until such details by broadcasters stating confirmation, return, or withdrawal; then nations of the previous year's contest should be treated as being present the following year.

Would it not be wise, and diplomatic all-round to stipulate the differences between Confirmed and Expressed Interest in the main article; even if it means having separate tables for "Confirmed" and one for "Expressed Interest"? It could be proven valuable, and resolve the current dispute into what should and shouldn't be included. What are the views on this from other editors? Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to properly respond, but my initial concern with "expressed interest" would be the many countries that would like to participate, but physically can't (not members of EBU) or that have to jump through a number of hoops first (are currently applying for membership) and the like. Grk1011 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Wes in touching on the underlying problem in the way we approach confirmed participation. Ideally Wikipedia should report what a reliable source says in the article, per WP:NOR and WP:V. So for example, if a reliable source says "Greece will participate in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest", then it can be stated as such in the article. Putting aside the debate over reliability, the big problem with this is that most of the time sources do not explicitly say that a country has confirmed (ironically, the Azerbajani news sites are a rare exception), and so in practice most sources infer a confirmation from the announcement of national selections or possible songs e.t.c., which results in conflicts between editors over what passes as a confirmation, possible issues related to WP:NOR as I have touched on previously on this talk page, and an arguably arbitrary list of confirmed countries until the EBU releases a participants list. This problem can get even more complicated when it involves countries that are returning and debuting. Some possible solutions include:

1. Creating a fixed criteria of what we consider confirmed. This is bending the rules a little with policy, but should be okay if we actually place the criteria in the article. This could include a presumption (which could be rebutted with sources) that a country which has participated last year previously will participate again, and that countries that have started looking for songs/artists or have started national selections will participate. This criteria can be got rid of once the EBU participants list is published, and the article corrected as necessary.
2. Don't talk about "confirmation" at all, at least until the participants list is published, and only list in the tables that have started national selections or who have decided a song or artist. Perhaps note in the article that the table has been deliberately limited to countries with details to add.
3. A combination of option 1 and 2.

Any thoughts? CT Cooper · talk 16:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay in replying back to your suggestion Cooper. I hand't noticed this until a few moments ago. If the article was to be based on the 2 options you're suggesting, then how would it technically look? I'm assuming it would be like it is now, but with some added wording to stipulate the criteria aspects that we would be using to explain why certain information has been included etc. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't look that much different to now, with the tables once added looking very much the same, with the main difference being in the explaining text. CT Cooper · talk 19:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I am formally offering my services as mediator in the dispute noted here. Would interested parties please indicate whether or not they accept my mediation here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Tony0106 is currently under 24 hour block, for 3RR breach, shown here. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, since Tony is a key figure in the dispute. Would anyone have any objection to me asking the blocking admin to rescind Tony's block so that he can participate in our discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He was given the option to appeal against the block, but rudely turned it down, seen here. However, I have no objections in the block being lifted for the sake of mediation talks to go ahead, as long as Tony agrees also to cease any editing of the main article, until a final outcome has been reached via the mediation process. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made an offer to appeal the block on his behalf. I'd rather not compel Tony to cease editing anything and assume good faith for now. It's worth noting that the next block is always more severe than the last. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're on the same wave-length about the types of editing restrictions for Tony. I mean, whilst a mediation is ongoing regarding disputes surrounding Azeri news agencies, then Tony should refrain for removing anything on the main Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article, and leave it in its current format, and perhaps the same applies for the list of named editors participating in this mediation cable. I will refrain from working on the main article until Mediation Cable has concluded. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

His most recent comment does not inspire confidence, and I am concerned that upon lifting the block he will just resume edit warring. However, for the sake of mediation, I would support lifting the block regardless of these concerns. I would be happy to agree to cease editing the article for content related to the dispute while mediation was occurring, if that helps, even if it means giving way to Tony's preferred version for the time being. CT Cooper · talk 19:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony has not responded to my offer yet, but the block is due to expire fairly shortly anyway. I think it is logical for involved parties to avoid editing the disputed portions of the article for the time being, but I'm hopeful we can get over this hurdle fairly quickly. It's unlikely I will be able to look at this again until tomorrow morning (I'm on Philadelphia time) but I'm already beginning to see a possible way forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid to report that it may not be as simple to avoid editing the disputed portions. Tony has already threatened to continue edit warring, and is ignoring requests not to touch the article from other users, including polite requests from the mediator of this dispute, Scjessey. I fear that he could get an indefinite ban, which he only has himself to blame if does happen. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony appears to have declared that he no longer wishes to participate in the editing of this article. I think we should respect that decision, though he did change his mind previously. In any case, there is still a disagreement whether Tony is present or not, and I would suggest that mediation continue. CT Cooper · talk 22:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Would involved editors prefer mediation to take place on this talk page, or be kept separate on the case page? Moving it here would probably make it a more inclusive discussion with quicker responses from everyone, while keeping at the case page would decrease the "noise" on this page. I'm happy with either approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep it on this page if possible, as usually this talk page does not get too busy. CT Cooper · talk 19:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the United Kingdom, but should be online (between here and Facebook - Farmville getting a little addictive lately lol) )for the majority of the day. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A clever discovery

For the past few hours, I've been researching gun.az and other ".az" websites, trying to work out how they are publishing material that other "more officially recognized" websites aren't even aware of, or even reporting it themselves. And I may have come across the answer which may either solve many answers, or put the cat among the pigeons. It appears that Gun.az website is in fact a news/information website, along with News.az, Armenia.az; 1news.az. These websites are all owned by the same company, and are covering all regions in the South Caucasus area but in various languages, such as for example... news.az = English; 1news.az = Azeri; Gun.az = Turkish; Armenia.az = Armenian

There are several contacts for each of the respective websites, including one from gun.az... Contact: Gun.Az Information Agency; Bashir Safaroglu street, 133, SAT Plaza, 12th floor. General Editor: Elnur Baimov. Responsible Editor: Emil Guliyev. Phone: (012) 596 11 78 596 11 82. Editorial address: editor@gun.az

Each article published on Gun.az has some sort of code/serial number at the bottom. I can't figure out what the serial numbers are for, but I can only assume that its is a log reference number for their records to link an article to their list of sourced material. However, there is also on the bottom of each article belonging to gun.az the words in Azeri "Xəta barədə vermək xəbər", which when clicked takes you to a new page showing a formal letter that backs up their article report, with brief sourced details and names of who the reporters have spoken to. All this suggests that they are legitimate websites, providing legitimate reports, contrary to belief that it is "unusual" to have such a high confirmation at such an early stage; but in an event as big as Eurovision, anything is possible, and we shouldn't always expect things to follow the same pattern year after year; there will comes times when an unusual blip like this could occur. Wesley Mouse (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do such research. I'm not surprised that they are all one news agency, given the similarity of their content. However, I am somewhat surprised that an Azerbaijani news has a news site in Armenian giving Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, though I suppose it could be for outreach! CT Cooper · talk 17:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have done something wrong on the web page, but when I go onto the "Xəta barədə vermək xəbər" link, I get taken to a formal letter about how to report any sort of errors and mistakes in the spelling and punctuation of the article, rather than one verifying sources and reporters. Lukex115 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's very peculiar Lukex115 that you got that. It now brings me doubt, I'll try again and obtain a screenshot of the page I got, although I'm not sure how to put it on here, assistance in that would be truly appreciated. Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked the same link page "Xəta barədə vermək xəbər", and now get the exact "formal letter" about help with spelling and article errors, as what Lukex115 got. This now worries me, and is setting off alarm bells in my head, as to verifiability of gun.az. Although, at the very bottom of the page is a link that reads "LiveInternet", which when clicked on takes me to an "administrator" page and asks to input name and password. On inspection via google, LiveInternet is a Russian based company, which again is confusing as to why a Russian company would be controlling an Azerbaijan .az internet domain - is this a common factor, or are LiveInternet a sponsor for gun.az. I find it hard to believe that a company would sponsor a blogsite, and that someone would go to so much extreme to make a blogsite look like an online newspaper. If any editors on this project are fluent enough in Turkish or Azeri, then I would appreciate their assistance in investigating this with me. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Even more so, according to LiveInternet's own wikipedia user page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uvula!/Liveinternet, it appears that it is a "Web portal and social networking site". Lukex115 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed something else quite strange, that may make whether the site is actually Azerbaijani at all. I'm not sure whether this is just me looking to deeply into this, or whether there is some logical explanation, but as you can tell the website is in the Azerbaijani language. However, in the web address for each page on the website, the words are in English. E.g. if you go to the homepage and click the "İqtisadiyyat" link at the top, you will be taken to "http://www.gun.az/economy". Perhaps this site therefore isn't actually Azerbaijani at all, and therefore does not have that advantage over the other countries in regard to information about Eurovision 2012? Lukex115 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying that link Lukex115, on inspection it states that a user can have upto 12 avatars on their "blog creations", gun.az appears to exceed this limit, which would suggest that LiveInternet could be a sponsor and not a host site for a news-looking blog. I remain judgemental on this, and will continue to pursue further investigations. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked that link "http://www.gun.az/economy", and it is still in Azeri language. When you checked were you using by chance Google Chrome? If so, then it would explain why you got an English translation, if you used chrome to translate the previously visited page, as it continues to translate subsequent pages on initial acceptance. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is the web address itself, is it usual for a website in one language to have its web addresses in different languages? Lukex115 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oopsy-daisy, just spotted what you meant Lukex. The URL address is using English words in it, but this isn't uncommon, as most foreign-language websites use English words in their URL codes. Take the Russian language version of Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics website, when you place your cursor over the Russian links, the URL still uses English words. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake then, sorry! However, I have just found this: http://www.liveinternet.ru/rating/ru/media/day.html?page=28. Currently at number 826 for me (it may have changed since posting), is the Gun.az website. It appears that it is in fact a LiveInternet blog. Lukex115 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted Lukex. I've used their search function to see if News.az appears, and thankfully it doesn't. It leaves a dilemma though, as we've established that News.az, Armeia.az, and 1news.az are all part of the same media group, which don't appear in LiveInternet's list of websites. Yet, Gun.az have the same editors, and Gun.az is suppose to be a Turkish language version of the website, yet Google Chrome recognises the language as Azeri. Is there a Turkish dialect used in Azerbaijan, or vice versa that we know of? I'm determined to conquer this mystery - hehe between us Lukex, we're like Sherlock Holmes & Mr Watson. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A twist to this mystery... If you look at the top-right corner of LiveInternet, you can view the page in English. Searching for gun.az shows no reesults as shown via this link.. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes we could be Sherlock Holmes children! I don't think that the search feature works really, I tried searching the Gun.az website and that returned no results, when we've clearly found it there. And in regards to the "1news.az", I swear I have seen that before on the list also, I'll see if I can find that on the list again or any of the others. Lukex115 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I had seen it before. http://www.liveinternet.ru/rating/ru/media/day.html?page=6. 1news.az, currently at number 159. Lukex115 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lukex, I have a feeling that ratings list is a statistics/logistics list, as at the bottom of it reads "Statistics of transitions from search engines for sites of this group". Which now brings me back to thinking LiveInternet are like a sponsor or using gun.az as for advertising purposes, just like MSN advertise on some English websites. Although saying that, MSN alone provides news reports in the similar way as BBC News etc, and MSN rarely provide a source of their investigations either. Similarities perhaps? Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Statistics of transitions from search engines for sites of this group" is actually a link which leads to a different page with different information. Lukex115 (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sceptical about using Pravda.ru now as a source too, that website is also owned by LiveInternet, and not only that, the general public can even alter any part of the website (including articles) just by highlighting text and then pressing "ctrl + ent", and the owners of the website won't even challenge any alterations. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we ought to be very careful then not to use any sources owned by LiveInternet... Lukex115 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Simplify things a bit

As mediator, my job is to mediate the dispute and not act as some sort of arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. The specific details concerning the articles are not really my concern, and it would take me a long time to get up to speed with all the ins and outs of what is going on. It seems to me that this entire dispute revolves around the quality of certain sources, am I right? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm, a mixture of a few things I think. There's a mixed-bag of things, that seem to be connected in some sort of domino rally effect. It's a case of one website reporting news of "41 confirmed participant". Criteria checks have been done to see if the site is reliable, and have come back positive. However, what is causing the problem is that, usually at this time of year, in the run up to the main contest, there is a lower number of confirmations at this early stage; and this is what could be the benefactor, as people are going off "tradition", yet we all know that some years there are blips in the general pattern of things. The news agency, News.az, is reporting 41 nations, yet none of the other Eurovision-related sites appear to be doing so, which is confusing slightly. We have established that News.az are based in Azerbaijan, which is also the host nation, so that could be giving them the advantage point in breaking news. It has, however, been reported a couple of days ago by Eurovision.tv (official website) that 40 countries are expected to take part in Baku, which would suggest that they (Eurovision Staff) are aware of the large number of confirmed, but each national broadcaster is entitled to change their mind, so they are being cautious at saying a definite "yes" to that large number, at such an early stage. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So you have one website claiming 41 nations and an "official" site expecting 40 nations. No other sources confirm these higher numbers? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kind of correct yes. 2 weeks ago, News.az (an Azeri news website in English) published an article stating a list of 41 countries confirmed, they sourced their article off a website called Gun.az (which appears to be a Turkish version of the same company). Another website called ESCDaily.com, also published the same list, with the same source "Gun.az". 2 days ago, Eurovision.tv (official website) and ESCToday.com (a reliable source) both reported a similar article stating "40 countries are expected to attend". Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. When sourcing specifics like this, I like to use the phrase preponderance of reliable sources. If you've got 10 reliable sources giving the number X, and 2 reliable sources giving the number Y, you should either go with X or say something like "X nations confirm they will attend, although {publication} indicates that this number has risen to Y." Another approach is to list each confirmed nation, sourcing each confirmation with a representative reliable source, rather than giving a specific number of confirmed nations. That way, individual nation confirmations can be challenged independently. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this will help you Scjessey, but here are the websites in question to show what they are reporting.
Gun.az
News.az
ESCDaily.com
ESCKaz.com
Eurovision.tv
ESCToday.com
You will notice that News.az, Gun.az, and ESCDaily articles are almost identical to each other. ESCKaz, state that everyong should treat it as if the previous year's participants are expected to attend the following year. Whilst Eurovision.tv and ESCToday, both state at the bottom of their articles about there being "40 expected to participate", which would be going along the lines of what ESCKaz are stating, plus back up the lists of "41 countries" reported by Azeri news sites. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are trying to convince me of the veracity of the sources. As mediator, I don't decide what should or shouldn't go in the article. The veracity of sources can be brought up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Extra opinions can be sought by filing a Request For Comment. I'm here to help frustrated parties work together. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if it came across that way Scjessey. I thought in showing the examples would help explain in better detail what the main issue was, and a case of what each website was stating, which is why there is this dispute at the moment. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately though, an underlying problem here is that there has never been any agreement over the reliability of some sources, and the disagreements become even more intense when it involves outside users. This is probably because some users expect pseudo-academic standards of reliability for Eurovision articles, and do not always appreciate how these sources work and that this is not an appropriate approach for this topic. ESCToday for example is the most reliable news site for Eurovision information, and after years of use has never let the project down, but it has previously been dismissed as a "blog" or similar by some outside users. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles, which almost needed mediation itself, provides some background. CT Cooper · talk 18:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if this seems overly simplistic, but why not just use information that has been verified and exclude the rest? If more than one independent reliable source confirms a detail, it should be fine to include it. If, however, no independent confirmation can be found, either exclude that detail completely or include it with an attribution. Bear in mind that you are working on an article for an event that occurs next year, so there is no need to include information that is unconfirmed or speculative. If some editors feel that the 40/41 number is poorly supported (for whatever reason), approach it from the point of view of getting sourcing for each individual nation (but don't use it for working out the total, because that would be synthesis). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That is quite a reasonable idea that Scjessey has come out with, and one that I'm happy to agree to. The fact that a handful of reliable sites state a high number, then why not use it, but stipulate in the article that the number of participants is subject to change prior to the EBU deadline. If people still feel a high number is ridiculous and poorly supported, then use individual sourced material from that specific nation. Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Scjessey's idea is quite good. I think that was one of the main things sending off alarm bells for me - that it was only the one article being repeated elsewhere, and that it seemed to confirm a large number of things that we know to be dubious. If another article could be found confirming that these countries are participating, I would be perfectly happy with using that article as a valid source. If another article could be found confirming only some, I would be happy to include just those countries as well. Lukex115 (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checking in. Is mediation still required? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not so much now no, as we seem to be getting on better now, with the departure of one user having reduced the tension somewhat. I did slightly loose the thread of the discussion under, #A clever discovery , but on the whole I don't think the question of the Azerbaijani news sources is that important, and instead time would be better spent having a more fundamental review of how we approach confirming participation.

On the number of confirmed countries, I've always interpreted WP:CALC to mean that adding up confirmed countries is not an WP:NOR issue, but I do agree that it still has problems, since until the participants list is released, the number is not fixed and we have applied a variety of standards on what passes as confirmed - see my comments at #Terminology, which also contains other ideas. I am open minded to approaching it on an individual country perspective. CT Cooper · talk 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If I may step out of my role as mediator for a second, my personal opinion is that the quality of sources (when it comes to confirming participants) does not need to meet the high standard you might expect when referencing a BLP, for example, because we aren't making any extraordinary claims or putting in any information that may harm an individual or organization. That being said, I'm always of the opinion that the better the sources, the better the article. Putting my mediator hat back on, I think it is clear that editors are now working together in a constructive manner. I will close the case page. Feel free to call on me again if things get out of hand, or simply open another case. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that BLP matching standards of sourcing should not be necessary, particularly given that the content is only temporary and countries have actually changed there mind after confirming on occasion, so nothing is ever definite. Thank you for your help with mediation, and I will let you know if mediation is needed again in this area. CT Cooper · talk 19:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the brownie. I like brownies. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of language in "Possible returns".

I quote literally the text about Czech Republic: "Previously a blog told us that the Czechs will participate in Eurovision 2012, although not being officialy confirmed yet. There will be more on this soon as the programmation from the Czech tv will be revealed soon"

The tone is closer to a news site than a Wikipedia article. It would be convenient an edition to adapt it to an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.158.5.210 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can reword it better, but another editor may have to add it to the article on my behalf, as I'm still involved in a mediation dispute, to which part of the "sourcing" is in connection with. Erm, how does this sound?... "The Czech television network Česká televize announced that they are making final decisions regarding the new season of programming for the network, which may include a return to the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Wesley Mouse (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds much better to me. CT Cooper · talk 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

40 nations confirmed

Based on latest information from official website, 40 nations confirmed. Quote "Some 40 nations are expected to be represented, of which several have already started their search for a potential winner." http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=38213&_t=eurovision_song_contest_governing_body_to_meet_in_baku_first_time --NovaSkola (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I had mentioned this yesterday as found at the bottom of this section; but I think it may have got missed by other users, after the spats and tantrums of one specific user. Wesley Mouse (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't say which 40 nations will be in Baku... /Hollac16 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dates for the contest

According to Eurovision Song Contest official facebook page, they have confirmed the dates as 22, 24, and 26th May 2012. They have changed their profile photo which shows these dates. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the article to reflect this. CT Cooper · talk 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Venue is confirmed

I added relevant information on venue, which is already started, there could be few spelling mistakes so feel free to fix it.--NovaSkola (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The link used to source the venue, doesn't state anything about a venue in the article whatsoever. It only talks about Azerbaijan winning the contest, and the article has a published date of 15 May 2011, when venue plans were still being negotiated. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? Both sources in the new section ([1], [2]) are dated for the 1 September 2011. I'm not sure how this new content should fix into already existing content, but the information appears to be new. CT Cooper · talk 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure. This article [3] (which has been sourced from Eurovision's official Twitter page, states dates as confirmed, but no official decisions made on venue yet. Azerbaijani government are alleged to have evicted thousands of Azeris from their homes so that they can demolish housing to make room for this new Crystal Hall. Jon Ola Sand states in this interview that neither he nor the EBU condole this, and that a venue has still to be decided upon. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision's official website even state that NO venue has been chosen, and various options are still under negotiation. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. If there is a lot of coverage on the housing evictions, which I suspect will be controversial, it should be mentioned in the article. The EBU website could just be out-of-date, but I could understand why they would be reluctant to give any kind of endorsement to controversial construction projects. I have also now taken note that neither sources actually mention the contest. CT Cooper · talk 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It is very interesting controversy about civilian evictions to make way for a new building, I'll do a scout of other ESC sites, and see if more are reporting this "eviction". And noting that it is highly controversial would also explain why the EBU aren't including anything about the Crystal Hall in any of their articles as a "selected venue". I also noticed those 2 other sites never mention the contest in their articles. And we already know that Azerbaijan planned to make a new stadium for the contest, and that the EBU wasn't happy about it, and insisted Ictimai have a back-up strategy in place (which is already mentioned in the current article). I'd say there is still no certainty about Crystal Hall being the official venue, when strict instructions have been laid down to have a back-up - and would warrant the venue being left as unknown. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would be predant to leave the venue as still unknown for the time being. CT Cooper · talk 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we are, the EBU have reported on their website just a few moments ago, that no venue in Baku has been decided yet for the contest next May. As it reads in the first paragraph of the main article Based on a variety of factors, a venue will be officially appointed at a later stage. All options were considered suitable, but no decision was taken. So having Crystal Hall as a confirmed venue is falsifying our article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then, what the hell is Baku Crystal Hall? Is this source is not relevant? http://www.azernews.az/en/Nation/35755-Major_concert_complex_to_be_built_in_Baku plus this http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/culture/17469.html .I work in that area where is construction going on and trust me, this is correct information.--NovaSkola (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying is that the Baku Crystal Hall isn't being built. It is just not clear if ESC 2012 will actually be hosted there, and the EBU explicitly stated yesterday that no decision has yet been made, so we should not be saying otherwise. The two sources talking about construction are correct as far as I can see, but do not mention the Eurovision Song Contest, so there relevance is questionable at the moment. CT Cooper · talk 10:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The arena will hold 25,000. http://www.eurovisionaz.com/the-news/289-crystal --NovaSkola (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That link still doesn't state that Baku Crystal Hall is the official venue for ESC2012. It states so on the 4th line of the 1st paragraph (and I quote), "Baku Crystal Hall", which is one of the three venue options of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Baku Crystal Hall is one of 3 venues, even the EBU confirmed that in this statement a few days ago. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of resolving the venue dispute, why not have a section listing the 3 venue choices, with a possible map of Baku showing their locations, similar to the way ESC 2011 article was done to show the potential host city bids. That way the readers will see that there ARE 3 venues, and have an idea of their location within Baku. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, given that the EBU seem to be reluctant to make a decision any time soon. CT Cooper · talk 21:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How would we header it though? "Venue Bidding Phase" or "Venue Options"? Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think "Venue options" would be better, since there doesn't appear to be any formal bidding phase. CT Cooper · talk 23:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is good idea.--NovaSkola (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as we appear to widely agree to this idea, I would like to propose that NovaSkola be invited to prepare the map, placing on it the locations for each of the 3 venues for the purpose of the article; especially as Nova is from Azerbaijan, and will have better knowledge of their locations. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Participation Map

Would someone be so kind to update the map, so that it includes Bosnia & Herzegovina. Its been almost a week, and the map still hasn't been updated. I would do it myself, but not sure how to do it. Thanks. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there have been a lot of complaints on this talk page about the map being out-of-date. Unfortunately, graphics is not my area either. I could learn, but I'm focusing on learning how to make sound recordings at the moment. Any help with updating the map would be appreciated. CT Cooper · talk 19:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina has been added to the map. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can find potential venues in Baku but first we need to find Baku map.--NovaSkola (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I made venue map from Google maps and located 3 potential venues. Number 1 is Baku Crystal Hall, number 2 is Tofik Bahramov stadium and Number 3 - Heydar Aliyev Sport Complex. http://s02.radikal.ru/i175/1109/50/c4c20d5edde5.png but can someone make it look more professional and add to wikimedia? --NovaSkola (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that NovaSkola. I'll have a look and make it more professional and presentable, for the purpose of the Wikipedia article. I shall also upload it to commons, and then add it to the article itself, upon completion. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now fixed the map, and made it look professional, also added the image to the ESC2012 article. However, a user has added Baku Crystal Hall as the venue location, which I'm still dubious about. This article by ESCToday.com states that Azad Tv International of Azerbaijan, confirm that Baku Crystal Hall is the venue, although a formal announcement by the Eurovision Song Contest organisers is yet to be made to clarify the truth about this being the venue. So until the EBU confirm Crystal Hall being the venue, then the venue details should remain as unknown. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the Copyrighted Google Map, with a blank Open Source map from Open Street Map, also from the prevous JPG to SVG format. Labels can be put on or off, on the edit page aligning x and y. This also allows upload to commons for other language Wikipedia's to use.

Map looks huge, can we not make bit small?--NovaSkola (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Like 300px so users can get bigger view when they click?--NovaSkola (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The map seems to be a more reasonable size now, so good work. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the google map image. I obtained it from Wikimapia (which I found that site through browsing through Wikipedia references). Thinking that it came from a wikisite, it never crossed my mind that it would breach copyright. But saying that, the current version now looks miles better. Well done! Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Iceland to perform in Icelandic?

The source about the Icelandic national selection does, in fact, confirm that all entries in national final must be performed in Icelandic language. However, it doesn't neccessarily imply that the song will stay this way for the Contest, since the same "only Icelandic" rule applied on the national final last year, but the entry was performed in English at Dusseldorf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.215.10 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

norway might withdraw

please dont remove my post about this issue again. a norwegian supported building in baku was torn down. that might cause norway to withdraw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Old discussion is archived as is standard on most talk pages. If nobody replies after a reasonable amount of time, assume that nobody is interested, and let it die. Repeatedly re-posting the same comments on the talk page is spamming, and may be considered disruptive. At the end of day, this is not a forum, and posts on the talk page should lead to constructive improvements to the article. Since we cannot post speculation without sources, please do not create any more threads of this nature without providing usable sources. CT Cooper · talk 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Norway already announced their participation and started their search of songs, so, even if they might withdraw on a latter stage, until they actually do we should consider them as a confirmed entrant. While I've found several news posts refering to the demolition, most of them don't even mention ESC. The only one I've found that mentions the demolition of the building and Eurovision (here) relates the taking down as part of the preparations and makes no mention to a possible Norwegian withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.226.74 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not just this report showing concerns about demolition of buildings to make way for the new Baku Crystal Hall, but also this interview by EBU Supervisor also expresses concerns, but does also state that the EBU haven't asked for such actions to be made. But as the above comment states, Norway should remain as confirmed, as NRK have started their selection process. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring prevention

Could all members of WP:ESC please remember to check the article talk page before rushing ahead and removing, altering, and in some cases adding content. There may be some circumstances where a mutual agreement has been reach to allow a certain piece included in or omitted from the article. There are a few users who are not abiding to this, and are sailing very close to edit warring territory. I have posted polite reminders to a handful of users already about this, and yet they still ignore advice. Thank You - Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There do seem to be a noticeable number of editors which don't keep an eye on what is happening on the talk page. If an editor makes an edit which suggests they are not aware of talk page discussion, I usually leave a friendly note on their talk page, and it is good that other editors do so too.

On the issue of the Czech Republic, as a general rule, if coverage is added on a subject, it should stay permanently barring updates. So if the Czech Republic is not coming back, the coverage of a possible return should be mentioned somewhere anywhere (as was done for other countries in previous years) - see WP:RECENTISM. CT Cooper · talk 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Who's the yellow country?

It doesn't say in the article and I don't like Geography. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a colour key under the map itself, which shows what purple, green, and yellow indicate.

• Purple = Confirmed countries
  
• Green = Confirmed participants that have selected their entrant and/or song
  
• Yellow = Countries that participated in the past but will not in 2012
  

The yellow country on there at the moment is Czech Republic. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am currently working on an image map to be used on the map, which basicly when the mouse is rolled over the name of the country comes up and clicking we take you to the appropriate country year. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm loving the sound of that idea already AxG, and wish you the best of luck with the project. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Semifinalists and finalists

The list of participating countries is at the moment divided between finalists (big 5 plus host) and semi finalists (everybody else). While I personally think this will be the case, is there already any decision on how the contest would work if all big 5 countries took part. After all, the rules stipulate a 25 song final, which would mean 19 semi finalists qualify and make the two semi finals awkward. While I guess in this case that the final number would be changed to 26 (or maybe 24) contesting songs, is there any reliable source about this yet? The issue hasn't come along the past years since Italy conveniently only entered in 2011, when Germany as another Biggie were holders, so in that case in some respect the rules ought to be changed and we don't know which way yet. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The EBU have already discussed this prior to this years contest in Germany, and stated that no more than 26 nations can compete in the grand final. So they already took into account that Italy would be hanging around in the contest for a good few years or so. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what was found on the EBU website... "The European Broadcasting Union is also reviewing the budget of the contest so every participating country is capable to host it. In the event of a non-Big 5 country winning, then the Eurovision final will have 6 direct participants, with the remaining 20 positions being filled by semi-finalists (10 from each of the semi-finals)". Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stray animals

There are posts going around social networks claiming that Eurovision is again used to financially support cruel killing of stray animals (e.g. letting shot dogs to slowly ddie on the street or burning them alive). For example, the Naturewatch provides a short note on it. This information is worth to be added to the Wikipedia article on Euro2012, people shall be aware of it.

Excuse to Kill Stray Dogs » | Naturewatch

I hope I do not violate the page policy, I strongly belive the page requires some "anti supporters" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxxaa (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one needs to read the linked article again LOL. It mentions all over it about European FOOTBALL championships 2012 not Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the proper word for that wouldn't be "anti supporters" but "controversies". (Just in case the article comes to need it). Also what Wesley said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.145.43.195 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The article won't need the animal cruelty being included in Eurovision 2012. If you read the article it mentions about the killing of stray dogs in Ukraine, who are co-host for UEFA Euro 2012 soccer. It also mentions something similar happening in 2005, when Ukraine hosted the Eurovision Song Contest. As this article is about Eurovision Song Contest: Azerbaijan 2012, then it doesn't warrant its inclusion. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the same poster as above (I finally got an account). Yeah, I had got that part, but I thought that just in case there's some controversy that actually refers to ESC 2012, we better not use "anti supporters". Not A Superhero (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As the ESC 2012 is being staged in Azerbaijan, then I pretty much doubt that issues with the culling of stray dogs in Ukraine will spill-over into Azerbaijan, especially when they don't even share a land-border. It may be worthwhile though, mentioning the animal cull on the talk page for Euro Soccer 2012; as there doesn't appear to be any mention of it there. The only unofficial controversy surrounding Eurovision 2012, is that of the eviction of hundreds of civilians from their homes in order to make way for the construction of the new Baku Crystal Hall, which coincidently has been mentioned by the EBU supervisor, Jon Ola Sand. Although I think we're awaiting for more information from "reliable" sources before even including that into the main article itself. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus source for "English" language.

I am sorry but this is not a source that can be referenced for English being the language of Cyprus' song. Firstly, this is a gossip article written from a first person point of view, laughing off other rumours as well as creating their own. Secondly, there is no firm evidence to support any arguments given by the author. This needs removing from the ESC 2012 page and any other pages it is listed on. Nathan | ^talk 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thirdly, it is by Oikotimes, which has been debatable as to their reliability. Looks like one that slipped through the net though. I'll sort it out now. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Portugal?

It's no longer in "Possible Withdrawals" and is not confirmed or withdrawing either. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, read this link! http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/09/22/portugals-participation-not-in-doubt/ CoolAbc (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly in reply yo CoolAbc's link, Oikotimes is questionable about their reliability, and anything published by them shouldn't be treated as 100% truth. This has been mentioned numerous times throughout this article talk page. Please try and avoid using their sources, unless an article published by Oikotimes has valid sourcing in itself. In reply to Spa-Franks, there was a valid link with the Portuguese news of possible withdrawal, to back up it's inclusion as a "possible". Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The link provided by CoolAbc doesn't appear to work any more. The content about Portugal was removed by a sock puppet of a indefinitely blocked user who was not editing in good faith, and I have hence restored it. I think the status quo should be maintained until some new sources are released about Portugal. CT Cooper · talk 23:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Moldova should be confirmed

This [4] should be a confirmation for Moldova? The article says The Eurovision fever will start soon in Moldova as the regulations for their national selection for next year's contest will be soon published on the official website of TRM. /Hollac16 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The country is now listed as confirmed. CT Cooper · talk 09:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

San Marino semi-confirmation?

In announcing their withdrawl from Junior Eurovision here [5], their head of Delegation said that they are "putting all their efforts into Eurovision 2012". --Ukavsfan (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me that they are talking about the ESC, and not another JESC. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of the source. CT Cooper · talk 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia will (not) compete in 2012

According to Oikotimes, Slovakia have chosen to skip ESC 2012 (source [6].) However, EBU have not confirmed or denied that, but I still think that Slovakia should be placed under the heading Possible withdrawsdue to it is an uncertain situation. What do you think? /Hollac16 (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It clearly makes no sense to use an Oikotimes source from September to confirm participation, and then to ignore another more recent Oikotimes article from October suggesting otherwise. Until we have more information, I would agree with placing Slovakia in possible withdrawals. CT Cooper · talk 15:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ESCToday have now annonced that Slovakia has withdrawal to 2012. They will not compete in Baku. /Hollac16 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, RTVS hasn't still decided. Many sources contradict each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.200.200 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

According to EscToday,RTVS has just released a statement that says that their participation is "yet to be decided". I think that, while they might be added as "possible withdrawals", it can't be confirmed as already withdrawn.Not A Superhero (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

So I was wondering would this article from today's Irish Daily Mail, I know, not the most trustworthy source of news, but still, count towards confirming Ireland's participation in the Eurovision 2012? anto475 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting press article, and does state RTÉ throughout. However, I can't find anything on RTÉ's website to back up this article. So I'm not sure whether it should or shouldn't be included. I'm torn in two, on this one. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its best to get more sources to back it up for it to be included. Pro66 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, use it. It's what we did for the UK. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Now ESCToday says that RTE says: "Yes, RTE want the twins to represent Ireland in the Eurovision. The boys are very excited. They feel they have unfinished Eurovision business and would like another chance. Provided the song is right, then yes, Jedward will accept the offer." Even if this maby not confirmed yet (about Jedward), I think this is a confirmation for Ireland. In the article (source [7]) speaks repeatedly about "Which artist will compete for Ireland in Baku?". So I think this is a confirmation. /Hollac16 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Jedward have been confirmed as the Irish entry for 2012. According to their own column in OK magazine, they have announced that they have been internally selected by RTÉ. Wesley Mouse (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Digital Spy have also reported on this confirmation. Wesley Mouse (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I think we should update the map. (I really need to learn how to do that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with those Jedward OK columns is that there's a lot of input from a ghostwriter. In other interviews, Jedward have confirmed they are entering again, but there has been no suggestion from RTÉ that they'll necessarily bypass the national heats. They may still have to compete in Eurosong or an equivalent competition. 129.67.157.122 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Should this be added as part of the preparatives?

Eurovision.TV reports that a letter from the Prime Minister of Azerbaijan, delivered by Ictimai TV (The host broadcaster) to the Reference Group in Berna, it is stated that Azerbaijan is commited to:

- Give safety and security guarantees to attendants. - Simplify the visa policies for everyone entering the country to attend the contest. - Grant freedom of expresion and assembly to delegates, crew, press and fans.

This could be included in the "Role of host broadcaster" section, I think.

They also presented the progress in their preparations to the contest, and the Reference Group concluded that they are well on schedule. Not A Superhero (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We certainly could mention the proposed changes to visa policies and other things, however the source should be appropriately written-up to avoid the section reading like a company press release. CT Cooper · talk 22:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Lucien involvement and Andorra considering to return

[8] Jack Lucien, an andorran singer, said on his twitter last month that he was recording a song called Jo vull mes de tu (I want more of you, in Catalan) which was for Eurovision. He has been involved in the Andorra Eurovision selection before and co-wrote Russia's entry last year, so although it's not a confirmation, he has been sharing the information about it with his small Twitter community. I'd say that he'd be giving the song to someone else, but the fact that he is a) recording it himself, b) from Andorra, and c) singing it in Catalan, makes me think that some confirmation must be coming soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.145.49 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It says (I quote): "Recording a very Eurovisiony song called Jo vull mes de tu...". I understand that he's recording a song in Eurovision style (whatever it means for him. For me, that would be disco-schlager or a Disney ballad), but it doesn't mean it's for Eurovision. If Andorra returns, we will know as soon as it reported in an official or reliable site, I guess.Not A Superhero (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with Not A Superhero. We can only report what reliable sources say, and anything which involves editors putting facts or opinions together to reach a conclusion is in conflict with the Wikipedia:No original research policy. So, I think we need some more solid sourcing before Andorra can be listed as a possible return. CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Andorra broadcaster RTVA have confirmed to fellow Eurovision fan site JanelaESC that Andorra will not be making a return to the contest in 2012. This has been published on October 19, via ESCDaily.com. Wesley Mouse (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Lucien today said in a radio interview that he now has recorded the song in Spanish, Quiero más de ti, as will be a candidate for Spain. He stated it in an interview, he is funny as he gets into trouble when he says it and he stops speaking! Link is here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBgZKhEmVsM Carlossolis96 (talk) 14:09, 05 November 2011 (UTC)

Are the new sources reliable?

Today have two members published a large number of countries: 32 countries to 38 countries. Now I question some sources credibility. Among other newz.az previously been discussed up to be an untrustworthy source. In addition, should at least ESCToday have published these facts, if it is to match. I just wonder simply if the information is correct or not. If it is not true, the number of countries to be 32 again. /Hollac16 (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Which countries have been added now? I noticed Italy being included, and upon reading the source, it doesn't really mention anything about ESC2012, all it says is the dates for San Remo 2012 - nothing added to say if San Remo will be used to select an Italian entry. And some of news.az articles have been included for other parts of this main article. So it does bring us back to swings and roundabouts as to do we (a) use all of news.az; (b) semi-use news.az as long as their articles are credible and sourced within themselves; or (c) don't touch news.az with a bargepole. I did update details about Jedward returning for Ireland, as there are now 2 independent sources both confirming this. One being Digital Spy, who have had confirmation from RTÉ; and the second being from Jedward themselves, who publicly told everyone in their own column via OK! magazine. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my laziness. I have done a quick check on the 6 countries that have been added - Croatia; Greece; Russia; San Marino; France; and Italy. Here are my findings...

• Croatia: Oikotimes publication, which upon inspection shows that they have gained the details from Today.az.
  
• Greece and France: News.az publication - and also an article which we discredited a few weeks ago, and shouldn't be used as sourced material.
  
• Russia: Oikotimes publication, which is only commenting on interest for a participant; nothing is stated about Russia entering in 2012.
  
• Italy: ESCDaily publication; and only mentions the dates for San Remo 2012, nothing in that article states about ESC 2012 participation.
  
• San Marino: Oikotimes publication, which also sources the information from International Press Release website PRWeb.com. I have viewed PRWeb.com, and the article does in fact appear there as a press release.
  Hope this helps with the enquiries over the new additions. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The News.az source is from August, and should probably be put aside, as I don't want to get back in that controversy again. I previously pointed to the person adding these new countries, Popsiclesare (talk · contribs), that using news.az sources is controversial and I will be sending a reminder about that with a link to this discussion. Based on the above, I would say remove all except San Marino. CT Cooper · talk 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But if all these sources are not reliable then why is the map updated with all these countries? /Hollac16 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A User:Mopje18 updated the map, however, it was a PNG rendering uploaded as a SVG, so the point of it did not work. I shall be sorting out the map from sources on here. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the above, I have removed Croatia, Greece, France, and Russia from the confirmed participants list; Italy had already been removed. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ireland¿?¿?

Ireland has not yet elected representative. They are only rumors. --84.125.223.10 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We have two sources confirming them as their representatives, however the reliability is dubious.

From DS: "the ­Eurovision organisers requested them back. Provided the song is right, then yes, Jedward will ­accept the offer." The 'the ­Eurovision organisers' could be the EBU, German organiser for 2011 or even RTÉ.

From OK, the whole page seems to have been written by Jedward themselves, even they confirm that they are the Irish entry.

It does seem like they are? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom Eurovision 2012 Representatives

There are reports that X Factor contestants Goldie Cheung and Johnny Robinson are being lined up is potential entrants for the contest in Azerbaijan next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.241.33 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that was a joke. Unless you can provide a source, then it will still be a joke. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd second what AxG says about it being a joke. Especially when the BBC told the Daily Star (a British newspaper) that they have a few people lined-up that they are considering to take on the challenge as Blue's successors. Wesley Mouse (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic on map

The current version of the participation map still shows Czech Republic as "yellow - not participating". Yet the article itself mentions that they weren't going to return in 2012, but now a final decision is still unknown. Therefore, shouldn't the Czech Republic now be shown as grey, similar to Slovakia, as they too are in limbo about participating. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Andorra could do with being highlighted on the map in yellow - Countries that participated in the past but will not in 2012. Now that we know they are not returning. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It was my knowledge that in the past countries were not highlighted yellow on the map until the official list of countries was published by the EBU. I don't know whether this situation has changed or not, but I would support that measure of leaving a country as grey until the official list is published. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oikotimes reported as unsafe website

According to Google diagnostics, the website Oikotimes has been listed as unsafe. Allegedly visiting the site has resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. Are we to go off Google diagnostics, and avoid using Oikotimes links in any Eurovision-related article, for the protection of visitors to Wikipedia as well as Wikipedians? Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

On my current security settings, Firefox blocks Oikotimes with the message that it is a "Reported Attack Page!", with this block linking to the report by Google above. This is over ridable, and when I have done so my anti-virus software or firewall hasn't picked up anything. I have no idea what has caused this report, and although I greatly question the reliability of Oikotimes, I will be surprised if they are intentially playing host to malicious software. One possible cause is that they were hacked by a third party with malicious software inserted, which has now been removed. CT Cooper · talk 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Cooper. I was just thinking about safety for everyone as a whole, both Wikipedians and visitors. On a strange note though, my computer had crashed the other day, and I ended up doing a complete factory restore, initially crossed my mind was perhaps I had done something to cause it to crash - on looking at the report - it does question my original suspicions as to whether visiting Oikotimes may have been the cause. Especially when the main thing to go first before the crash was internet settings, followed by everything virtually melting away on my hard-drive. Touch-wood the problem has now gone away, and everything is working again - although Oikotimes still shows as a malicious site on Firefox, Safari, IE and Chrome. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Norton says the site is safe, though it could be an out-of-date report. While I am uncomfortable with linking to websites that have security issues, particularly with the potential policy issues, it is clearly impractical to remove all links to Oikotimes articles in all Eurovision articles in a short space of time, and if we did go ahead with a mass removal, the blocking could have been lifted by then. We could contact Oikotimes to request clarification, but last time I e-mailed them I never got a reply. Alternatively, we could simply wait a week or two to see if the block is lifted. CT Cooper · talk 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My browser (Firefox 7.0.1.) sometimes blocks it and sometimes loads it normally. Right now it's blocked. I believe however it is a false alarm, because a similar problem happened to a friend's site, who was using drop down menus (similar to those in Oikotimes) and Google blocked her site as malicious, before she found out that what was causing it were the modules she used for the menus. So in Oikotimes, a site 10 times heavier, with gimmicky modules everywhere, one module could have gone wrong and hopefully the administrators know it and try to fix. That, and CT Cooper's observation (that his computer wasn't infected when he bypassed the block) fuel my suspicion that it is a false alarm, although I wouldn't try to bypass the block myself (the idea of formatting and re-installing Windows if something goes wrong isn't particularly pleasing to me). In any case, I think replacing the Oikotimes sources of every article is a bit extreme, since much information can't be found on other sites (I added a bunch of Oikotimes articles myself). Let's wait and hope it's temporary. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Chromium, running on Windows, used to block it a couple weeks ago, but it stopped doing it for me since then. Same for my antivirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A link to a source from Oikotimes about Portugal was not blocked by Google, but when I reached the page my anti-virus software went crazy. I have removed links to this source as a precaution. I really do not know what is going on with that website. CT Cooper · talk 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

i updated the norwegian article with correct information

information that i got from the official website of the norwegian selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Jedward to ESC or not?

According to EBU and ESCToday, RTE (Irish National TV company) have not decide how they will chose artist and song for ESC 2012. Therefore, I consider it inappropriate to have it written that Jedward will represent Ireland, when it is not yet decided. Sources: [9] & [10] /Hollac16 (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. From what I can tell, RTÉ hasn't decided what selection process they will make for 2012 yet, so I would remove Jedward from the participants list until proper confirmation has been made by RTÉ on what they will do for Baku. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The articles from EBU and ESCToday seem to be very vague themselves - sorry to say that! Reading both articles (which are identically worded anyway), they state that Jedward have confirmed their representation for Ireland in Baku next year. Yet, on the other-hand the articles state that RTÉ haven't confirmed or denied this. This would suggest that either the EBU or ESCToday haven't contacted RTÉ yet to clarify it - especially when both websites have only just published their reports a few hours ago. Are we forgetting that there is a link from Digital Spy, which reports on an interview with RTÉ who confirmed Jedward will be Ireland's representatives in Baku? Not to forget the penned article in OK magazine, which Jedward wrote themselves - and in that it states "Jedward are doing ESC 2012"? Do you really think artists such as Jedward would really go around spreading lies and speculation? They'd only be red-faced in embarrassment if they were to do such an act. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror state that RTÉ have "asked" Jedward to represent Ireland in 2012. Digital Spy announced on 16 October that RTÉ have asked Jedward to represent Ireland, and again on 28 October the same website report the confirmation. Even RTÉ have commented on the news. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In many cases, as in the EBU, ESCToday and the RTE sources, there are question marks after the title, so there is still some uncertainty about it all. Therefore I would think that we should leave Jedward off of the page until there is official confirmation by RTE or by the EBU over their selection. In any case I don't think that just because an artist says they're going to compete that we should take them by their word in the case of an encyclopedia article. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that Jedward shouldn't be on that list. The twins have only confirmed they'd be going back to Eurovision and that could just mean reentering at national finals stage (the OK column is heavily ghostwritten, so I don't think it counts as a direct source from them). The current rumour is that RTÉ want to run a national final like they did this year, but can't find many acts willing to compete now that Jedward - who, to be fair, are massively popular in Ireland - have said they are entering. ANB (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be wise and compromising then to have create the Ireland in Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article, and have something mentioned in that about the alleged participation of Jedward? While keeping their name off the current table on this article? It does cover all angles then. I do find it strange however, that RTÉ's own website mention the news about Jedward, but they (RTÉ) neither confirm or deny the allegations. You'd have thought RTÉ would have seized that chance to set the record straight. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And now, ESCToday have confirmed that Jedward will be in Irelands national final, just like last year. They have NOT been chosen as Irelands artist - yet. /Hollac16 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In light of the edits made to remove Jedward from the list of entrants and returning acts, could someone please change Ireland's status in the infobox from 'green' (act selected) to 'purple' (entering, but no act selected)? I'm not sure how to do this myself. ANB (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Andorra in the map

Why isn't Andorra yellow in the map? It says in the article that they have no plans to comeback... so why not yellow? CoolAbc (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is being left grey, until the official participation list is published later this year. As Andorra have stated they won't return, but would consider it if someone sponsored/funded it for them. In hindsight, it makes more sense to leave a country as grey, until a participation list is published, or make it purple if the broadcaster has 100% confirmed their intentions to take part. Wesley Mouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

But what about Czech Republic? They are yellow? And they are not shure about don't participate! CoolAbc (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Check again CoolAbc. Czech Republic was altered to grey a few hours before you posted this thread after I mentioned about it in the discussion thread #Czech_Republic_on_map. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't check! Sorry! CoolAbc (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ireland entered on the map but not on the table

Jedward said they are up for it again, so the map and table were changed, but then the selection process was not confirmed, so the table was fixed, but not the map. Can someone do this because I don't know how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.108.66 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

26 countries confirmed participation at this moment

At this moment 26 countries confirmed participation official.

• United Kingdom: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/192555/Eurovision-Charlotte-Church-on-Beeb-s-hit-list/ this is not official confirmation to participation in ESC 2012 from BBC. This is simply a rumour, that CHARLOTTE CHURCH to represent United Kingdom.

• Romania : http://escdaily.com/articles/25242 The official announcement of TVR’s participation and the selection process for the Romanian entry to the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 is expected to take place this December or January next year.

• Moldova : http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17682 This is not official confirmation to participation in ESC 2012 from TRM. TRM don't published the regulations for their national selection at this moment!

• Georgia : http://www.today.az/news/society/88669.html GPB don't official announce their participation in the contest. The words of the georgian minister of culture it is not official confirmation to participation from GPB!

• Ukraine : http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17600 Ukrainian broadcaster NTU has categorically denied any association of "Show #1" broadcasted on Inter channel with Eurovision preselection as "complete nonsense". Now NTU don't published the selection process and rules of the national selection!

Зарицкий Максим (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of a large number of countries given that at least one had a sourced national selection date, and they are all still listed on Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 with one having an article. The list of "confirmed participants" is based on each country listed have a reliable source indicating they will participate - nothing more is necessary. The only grounds for removal is if the source is too vague or is unreliable. Going through the sources...

• United Kingdom: Source announcing the selection method can be reasonably be used a confirmation. The Daily Star is a tabloid but is a reliable source.
• Romania: Gives details of national selections e.t.c., so clearly a confirmation. No past consensus on if ESCDaily is reliable, but has been used a lot previously.
• Moldova: Again national selection details which is a confirmation. The opinion of editors on what TRM do and don't do does not override reliable sources, which ESCToday clearly is.
• Georgia: This is the only real dodgy one. Azerbajiani news source have caused a lot of trouble in the past, and I don't see anything in this article which confirms participation.
• Ukraine: Again national selection details, so clearly a confirmation. Do you have any evidence for your claims?

So on the whole, I would say remove Georgia and keep all others. CT Cooper · talk 10:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CT Cooper. However, I shall look into Georgia, see if is more substantial and valid details to back it up. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Andorra quits EBU

As reported on ESCToday.com, Andorra have quit the EBU, and therefore will never return to the Eurovision Song Contest, unless they rejoin the EBU. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Italy and San Marino are working for Esc 2012

This italian site talks about Italy anda San Marino. This is the best site in Italy about ESC, very affordable

http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/11/12/eurovision-song-contest-2012-litalia-sempre-piu-vicina/

Emanuele 75 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele75 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The information on that site (linked above) is very debateable. It doesn't state either way if Italy are or are not taking part in 2012. From translating the Italian wording via Google translator, it reads as follows: "That of 2011 was a Eurovision Song Contest, which saw the return of Italy after many years of absence, now the question remains edition 2012 and one question: will Italy? From RAI still no confirmation, ditto EBU, but we can tell you that the chances of a return are very high and, as always, if you trust the news that we give you on the ' ESC , we can tell you that from what we understand is pretty much a done deal (with relative risk of contradiction that we think and hope it will be very minimal).". So alas, RAI haven't confirmed anything, so Italy should remain omitted from the Wiki article, until something more substantial and reliable is found. As for San Marino, an official press release was found, and is currently being used as the source for the main article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia will join ESC2012

http://medialne.etrend.sk/televizia-spravy/slovensko-ide-tento-rok-na-eurosong-s-mirom-smajdom.html Slovakia will be represented by Miro Šmajda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.132.217 (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and once again, the selection was internal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.129.164 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's (In Slovak) the confirmation by the broadcaster: http://www.stv.sk/stv/press/rtvs-rozhodla-oucasti-slovenska-na-eurovizii-2012/ And I think we need to update the map. Not A Superhero (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Greece and Belgium

According to ESCDaily Greece have confirmed its participation in ESC 2012 (source: http://escdaily.com/articles/26111). They also says that Belgium will present its artist Friday 17 November (source: http://escdaily.com/articles/26117). However, are ESCDaily a "safe" soruce or could it may not be published? /Hollac16 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

ESCDaily have been used many times in the past, as they are considered to be reliable. And they tend to state their sourcing withint the articles too. Wesley Mouse (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Iris for Belgium

I've never heard of her but in the official Eurovision video she says she's just released a song called "Wonderful.". Discuss. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia not confirmed...yet?

Here is the article. http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17839 --92.7.25.92 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FYR Macedonia

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17848 --92.7.25.92 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaliopi was also "in" Eurovision 1996

The Macedonian artist Kaliopi also took part in the Eurovision 1996 contest, she got stuck in the Pre-qualifying round. I think she should be added in the returning artists list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.231.189 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgia and Greece

Greece is listed as participating but not shown purple on the map (map needs updating), whilst Georgia is not listed as participating but is coloured on the map, is Georgia confirmed or does the map need editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.96.27 (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgia haven't confirmed anything yet, and therefore shouldn't be coloured on the map. This needs adjusting to show Georgia as grey for now. I'd change it myself, but now sure how to go about it. Very happy for someone to teach me this, in due course. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File was only just changed today, I've removed Georgia and asked for a source. Another thing is, the image File size went up (3kb) when mostly it should remain at 414kb. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning Artists

Is it really necessary to put Kaliopi as a returning artist? I thought by a 'returning artist', it meant an artist who has already taken part in the Eurovision semifinals/final. For example with this year, Eric Saade represented Sweden in Eurovision and he wasn't listed as a returning artist (because of his previous entry 'Manboy'). --92.7.25.92 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaliopi participated in the 1996#Pre-qualifying round (today's Semi-Final), not to be confused as a 'national selection'. Eric Saade's 2011 Eurovision entrance was his first, he participated in Melodifestivalen 2010 (a 'national selection') with 'Manboy'. Is this clear? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, yes you made it clear, thanks. I was thinking of national selection. --92.7.25.92 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic confirm not returning in 2012

A few moments ago, ESCToday announced that the Czech Republic won't be returning to ESC 2012. Therefore, would it be possible to now highlight the aforementioned nation as yellow on the map to correspond with the announcement? Thanks! - Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've placed this source in the article since it is more solid than ESCDaily one i.e. it contains the actual announcement from the broadcaster. Given this announcement, I agree the map should be updated. CT Cooper · talk 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Liechtenstein EBU active member?

It appears that Liechtenstein's national broadcaster 1FLTV, may have finally been granted active membership. Two documents published on the EBU's official website have Liechtenstein listed as members. The first document dated March 2011, is an EBU training document and have Liechtenstein listed as a member. The second (and most recent) document dated October 2011 has Liechtenstein listed as an EBU member (as shown on page 24 of that document). Could it really be true? And if so, is it worth noting them down as a possible debut now? Seeing as we already know from previous years that Liechtenstein are eager to join Eurovision once membership is approved. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks like Liechtenstein is now a member, though in the October source the facility box for Liechtenstein in the table of members is empty for some reason - with this being filled for all other countries. It would be good to include Liechtenstein in possible debuts, though some "fresh" sources on the subject of participation would be preferred for inclusion. CT Cooper · talk 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything else that shows their interest for 2012 contest. However, is it safe enough now to add them to the active members list on the EBU article, using the sources provided? Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Eurovision Times website, have published an articled based on my research, which I posted above. Either its bizarre, or coincidental. But interesting nonetheless. Again, I am monitoring reliable sources for news on Liechtenstein to see if they are official EBU members now, as well as possibilities of ESC 2012 début. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we add them? CoolAbc (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We haven't added them just yet, as there are too many conflicting factors. Although the EBU have Liechtenstein listed on some documents as an active member, they are not appearing on the EBU's official "list of members" page. Saying that, they still hold Andorra as an active member, when we know that Andorra have quit the EBU - so it could be a case that the EBU haven't got round to updating the membership page. Also, there isn't any new details from Liechtenstein's broadcaster, 1FLTV, to express début participation for 2012, so we cannot include them as as "possible" based up pure speculation. Hope this answers your question. Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Further update - I've stumbled across an interesting find on the EBU website. A document from an EBU meeting Geneva dated 16 September 2005, has Liechtenstein listed as an active member of the EBU. How can this be, when 1FLTV submitted an application in 2009 (which got rejected), and resubmitted another application in 2010 (which we are still unsure as to whether it has been accepted or not). I'd appreciate another set of eyes casting their views on this find - thanks Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I may have also stumbled on that article as well, and all I can say is, well I don't really think it is accurate enough. 1FLTV was not around in 2005 anyway, the only thing that Liechtenstein needed to join the EBU. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The dates had crossed my mind too AxG. I'm pretty sure that 1FLTV was "born" on 15 August 2008. Which is 3 years after the article that shows Liechtenstein as "active". I have read, however, at the very bottom of the page of EBU's Active Members list, that they only update that particular page every 2 months. The last update took place on October 28, 2011. So I'm guessing the next update won't be until the end of the year, or early 2012 - by which time Andorra should be removed from it, and we'll know more if Liechtenstein suddenly appears in the updated list. There's also a few other websites (Italian and German ones) that are reporting Liechtenstein as being an active member, and an application for ESC 2012 being submitted. But I'm dubious to their reliability status at this present time. If I find something more secure and substantial, then I'll add them to the article as "possible débutantes". Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Liechtenstein is definately NOT an EBU member and will not participate in 2012: http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/exclusive-no-participation-of-liechtenstein-at-eurovision-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.205.0.72 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well providing that the most recent source is right, that settles the issue for this year. While I thank the Eurovision Times for their research, I think the appearance of these two sources on the issue just as we are discussing it is probably not a coincidence, which I do find a little troubling - since Wikipedia should be separate from its sources to avoid conflict of interest, original research, and self-publication issues. CT Cooper · talk 14:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

EBU publish rules for ESC 2012

The European Broadcasting Union have published the official rules for the 2012 contest, which can be accessed here in case anyone wishes to read them. Bizarrely the rules have Italy mentioned as being in the final. This has confused me, as I thought the rules wouldn't have mentions about "confirmed" participants. Wesley Mouse (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For all we know, the EBU probably knows more than what we do on who is participating or not. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If this be the case, would it be safe to include Italy as confirmed in the Wiki article then? Wesley Mouse (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Portugal

Okiotimes sources again. Have we decided or made a U-Turn on Okiotimes? Spa-Franks (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source: OGAE Portugal! http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/portugal-national-final-in-2012/

I think that is reliable! Oikotimes isn't!!! Just some days ago they reported about a Slovak national final and named participants which was a complete hoax!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.20.253 (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find that ESCToday reported about the Slovak national final, and they named the participant. So not reallly an "Oikotimes Hoax". Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I should add, that some publications by Oikotimes are currently used in this wiki article, as those articles themselves also have "sourced" material. As long as Oikotimes source their news, then it should be permitted as sourcing for Wiki-purposes. Otherwise, if they don't, then it shouldn't be touched with a bargepole. ESCDaily, currently have Portugal, and a few other nations listed as "unconfirmed, but being treated as being expected to participate, as none of them have expressed any desires to withdraw thus far"; which is the way the EBU tend to treat every nation anyway. Countries from the previous contest are treated as participating the following year, unless they state otherwise. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant this article, not the Smjada mess-up: http://www.oikotimes.com/eurovision/2011/11/12/stv-presents-provisional-nf-2012-list/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.20.253 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the article itself is headed "Rumours Slovakia", then it is a bit of a giveaway really. So to treat a rumour as official gospel, would be utter stupidity. If I come across articles that are headed as rumours, then I view them with a pinch of salt, and not believe all that I see, unless the article is sourced. Which some Oikotime's articles do cite valid sources within themselves. Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OGAE Portugal have reported themselves that Portugal are participating in 2012. Surely OGAE sites are just as reliable as national broadcasters or EBU? Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

Has anyone heard anything about a possible Moroccan comeback? I have tried to find any comment on their participation but found none yet. Even though their where comments that Morocco would do a comeback in 2012.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There's rumours about a Moroccan return every year, they're the Eurovision Loch Ness Monster. Though this year the rumours seem more firm that other years (EscDaily cites it as a possibility, and News.az says they already applied to enter... but there's controversy about their reliability). But as long as there's no confirmation by an official or fully reliable site, it's just a possibility. That's why Morocco is listed in "Possible returns". Not A Superhero (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Without dragging up past debates, News.az has been shadowed with doubt, and just like Oikotimes, some of News.az's (as well as Oikotimes') articles are unreliable, with exception to the ones that they publish with reliable sources. ESCDaily, appear to be very respectable to a high standard with each article they've published to date - they even include sources from EBU, national broadcasters, or even ESCToday - which we all know sources from those respective companies are as good as gospel in relation to Wikipedia policies. The EBU have mentioned about comebacks for Morocco, Monaco, and Montenegro, in their latest general meetings held in Geneva. I am constantly checking reliable sources for more details on a daily basis, and shall include them into the article as and when I find them. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Morocco won't return in 2012... The channel isn't even thinking about it: http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/morocco-never-intended-to-return/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.6.194 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I had read that article too. But I think you may be getting confused with matters, as the article states that SNRT don't wish to participate, and only renewed their license with the EBU. The member of the French delegation stated in his interview that Morocco are "likely" to return with a new broadcaster 2M TV. 2M TV are allegedly to have also been present at the EBU meeting in Geneva, along with SNRT. So we should wait and see what happens. Besides, the official participation list will be announced in a couple of weeks time. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

What about Liechtenstein? Didn't they wanted to participate? Isn't that even a possibility? CoolAbc (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to #Liechtenstein EBU active member? for further information on this - thanks! Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you! CoolAbc (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic have withdrawn their comments on non-participation, however they probably won't participate. Does this need to be taken off the map? Popsiclesare 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Italy in or out?

I think that Italy should be under the heading "confirmed participants", due to EBU rules about the "Big Five" countries. I think that EBU expect Italy to take part in 2012, due to they are one of the "Big Five" countries. Italy are already written in the rules as one of those already in the final. What is your opinion? /Hollac16 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a speculation, we need a secure source, That's my opinion. CoolAbc (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the short paragraph about Italy is self-explanitory really, and sufficient enough for now, until we know either way if Italy are in or out. Of course, the EBU rules have Italy listed as in. But as well all know by now, we are to treat every nation that participated in a contest, as "expected to participate" the following year; until further announcements as to withdrawing, returning, débutante, or continuing is published by reliable sources. For the purpose of Wikipedia, however, it is best to only add countries as confirmed once publications are made by reliable sources. SO it is best Italy remain where it is in the article, for now at least. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, there are no news about neither participation nor withdraw of Italy. So, i suggest to remove any referral to this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranma25783 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been multiple sources mentioning Italy published, two of which are in the article, with one being used to source their inclusion in the rules, and the other discussing possible participation. I'm not following the "no news" point, given that the sources were published relatively recently and I see no reason to deviate from the status quo until more sources are published regarding Italy. The participants list will soon be published, but jumping the gun in either direction wouldn't be appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right in you last sentence. No news = neither possible participation, nor possible withdraw.--Ranma25783 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that - what I meant by "jumping the gun in either direction wouldn't be appropriate" is that putting them in the confirmed participants list without proper sourcing isn't appropriate, but neither is removing sourced content about the issue until a decision has been made. This is not a news site, and content should not be treated differently because it is or isn't "news". CT Cooper · talk 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I seeing things correctly here? Two publications have been used as sourcing for Italy. One from the officials at the EBU stating Italy as confirmed. Another from ESCDaily stating that RAI may withdraw. So these pieces of "news" articles are no longer classified as "news"? Sorry to say, but as soon as something is published, then it becomes "news". Sorry, but I'm with CT Cooper on this one, as both sources are from reliable sites, then there is nothing wrong to mention the entirety in this article, including the sourced links as points of reference. Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well now ESCDaily confirm Italy [11]. /Hollac16 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ESCToday are also reporting Italy as "most likely" to be present at Baku 2012. Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Italian website, Eurovision News looks reliable enough. They don't appear to be a blog or fansite; but appears to be an Italian version of ESCToday. Safe enough to use as a sourced link for Wikipedia? Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In the last years, it has proved to be very reliable about Italian and Sammarinese participation. As you say, it is an Italian EscToday. --SimoneMLK (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We know Italy is in. The map needs to be updated. --SimoneMLK (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to update the map, otherwise I would have done it. Don't fancy meddling with the unknown. I'm happy for someone to teach me though, if anyone has the time. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

France

Please change the map, as France has just confirmed their singer. Popsiclesare (talk) 1:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Poland

The reference for Poland states a decision about the countries participation was expected on the 24th November, has any one seen any further information regarding the polish participation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.211.191 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything else, other than articles about '24 November' date. Decisions regarding participation are still unknown for Armenia, Georgia, Morocco, Poland, Russia, and Slovakia. If all but Morocco confirm their participation, then we'll be on target for a new record of 44 nations (45 if the return of Morocco rumours are true) - which is bizarre, as Gun.az and News.az were reporting those kind of figures early on in the year; and as most of the editors in here know by now, we was disputing the reliability of those 2 websites. Wouldn't it be ironic if Gun.az and News.az were right all along? Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/poland-ebu-tries-to-convince-tvp-to-stay/ Polish decision is still unknown... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasCrackerish (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Serious Vandalism on all Eurovision Articles

User:Claus M. appears to have undergone a major wave of vandalism both on Eurovision 2012, and Junior Eurovision 2012 articles. The user has added tons of false information, and creating chaos to an unacceptable level. I have left a comment on the user's talk page, to refrain from doing such actions, or he/she could face being blocked. However, the user is continuing to falsify articles in a disruptive manner. Could someone please assist with this, and stop things getting worse than they are doing. I have reverted some of the edits made by the user, but don't want to end up with complaints being placed on me for edit wars, or 3RR violations. Especially when I'm not partaking in that kind of action, and trying my best to put an end to vandalism. Thanks - Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Montenegro

Should Montenegro really be listed as returning? The source only states that the director of RTCG thinks "it is likely to happen". No definite confirmation has been given. Lukex115 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation has been given. ESCDaily.com even talk about the participant being selected internally this time around. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, maybe it would be better to use that reference then? Lukex115 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was being used? Although with all the shenanigans today chasing around Wikipedia rectifying all of User:Claus M's vandalisms, then it hasn't been easy keep track of every minor detail. It could be that the old link has been placed back in error, with all the fixings I've been doing. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, to me, at the moment, the reference being used is http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17871. Don't worry though, I shall change it now. :) Lukex115 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Luke, you're a star! Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Italy and sammarinese jury 2011

This is the righr link, the last one do not match any more in one case and in the other one is not right

http://www.eurofestival.ws/2011/05/25/eurovision-2011-le-giurie-italiana-e-sammarinese-a-confronto/

Can you change it, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele75 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the link you have provided above is dated 25 May 2011, which is a lot older than the 3 currently being used in the article, which are all dated 5 December 2011. As those latter 3 are more recent, then their inclusion would be more beneficial and up to date. Wesley Mouse (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia confusion!?

I think there may be some slight confusion in the context of the ESCToday sourced articles in respect of Slovakia. A section of the ESCToday article reads as follows: "The possibility of Miro Šmajda representing Slovakia is not ruled out at all, but it is now in doubt as it seems that some terms of the contract still need to be discussed in order to come out with a final agreement. Anyway, the Slovak broadcaster has the intention to be represented in Eurovision next year as long as it does not involve financial cost."

On reading the paragraph in more depth, it appears that Slovakia are participating in Baku (which is clarified in the use of "the Slovak broadcaster has the intention to be represented in Eurovision next year"), but the decision on Miro Šmajda being the representative is in doubts (which is clarified in the use of "The possibility of Miro Šmajda representing Slovakia is not ruled out at all, but it is now in doubt"). My interpretation of that is that Slovakia will be there, but not necessarily with Miro Šmajda singing for them. Does this interpretation look the same with others, or not? Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's kinda tricky. For me, the "As long as it doesn't involve financial cost" part means they are willing to enter if there's an artist willing to pay the travel and housing, and I don't know if even the entering fee, on their own (Which Miro was, if I understood things right, but they still seem to need to clarify things with him). So, since they're including an escape clause for the case they don't find a suitable arrangement with any artist, we can't take their participation for granted. At least that's my perpective. Not A Superhero (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Song Template

Well it's a start: User:AxG/Sandbox/Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, I've not created this in the 'Template:' namespace, since it only contains 1 song and 2 links. Please feel free to add to it when they come in and move it to 'Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012' when the time is right. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Production company

Host Broadcaster of the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest Ictimai TV has announced the German company Brainpool GmbH has been chosen to be the Official Production Partner for the upcoming contest. Brainpool was the production partner of German broadcaster NDR at the Eurovision Song Contest 2011.[12] (source: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=41573&_t=brainpool_chosen_eurovision_2012_production_partner / to be inserted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012#Role_of_the_national_host_broadcaster) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.43.132 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2011‎ (UTC)

the map

Somebody please change Switzerland back to green on the map, we already know their song for crying out loud!74.131.99.14 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the map itself to view it - you will notice that it IS showing as green. Not sure why it isn't updating to the new version of the map on the article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Try a hard refresh, using Ctrl+F5. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is a hard refresh? What does it do? Also, strangely enough, I clicked on the map itself and Switzerland showed up as green there.74.131.99.14 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the hard refresh, and the map still shows Switzerland as purple on the article, but green when you view the map file itself. However, on other language versions (which also use the same map) Switzerland is showing as green. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem resolved. I've cleared my cache, and everything appears to be as it should. Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A hard refresh is basically forcing the server to update the page rather than what is already stored, it is basically clearing your cache put just for that page. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)