Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Austria language choice

OK first it was down as German, now its been changed to Bavarian, but according to Eurovision.tv the language is a dialect of the Mühlviertel region of Austria. There doesn't appear to be a wiki-article for this dialect. What should we do? Wesley☀Mouse 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm from Germany and I can tell that it's not the standard German. It is also NOT Bavarian since Bavaria is in Germany, not in Austria. As Eurovision.tv says it is the Mühlviertel dialect. But since there is not Wikipedia article for this dialect, we should just write "Austrian German". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.38.195 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple footnote is a simple idea detailing the language. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Mühlviertel dialect is formally a Central Bavarian dialect of Upper Austria, I think that writing Upper Austrian with a redirect to Central Bavarian (Upper Austrian) should be enough. And second thing: Would you say 'ass' to a little child in English? Because 'popo' means 'ass', but in a more childish way. German-speaking children firstly learn 'Popo', which is widely used in front of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.252.23 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A footnote would be a good idea. But having it down as "Central Bavarian" looks strange. How about listing it as "Mühlviertelian" and using the Upper Austrian link? In regards to "ass", the EBU have translated the title as "shake your ass", so if they are fine with it, and it is sourced, then that is how it should be. Wesley☀Mouse 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I originally changed it from 'German' to 'Bavarian' because it isn't standard German. I then changed it to 'Central Bavarian' after diggiloo.net used it for its entry (see here). Since Mühlviertel is in Upper Austria, and Central Bavarian seems to be spoken there I felt it should be listed as such. I don't think it should be put as 'Mühlviertelian' as that seems to specialised, especially if the language is used in neighbouring regions as well. Possibly linking to 'Bavarian' and having a footnote specialising it as Central could work. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have added a footnote explaining that the Austrian entry is in the 'Mühlviertel dialect', and wikilinked specific words to direct readers to the respective articles. I'm not too sure about the diggiloo.net website; that site and the details on this very article look near-identical. But as the EBU have published the entry as being in 'Mühlviertel dialect', then I'd be swaying more to what the EBU published rather than what diggiloo.net have - especially when the EBU are technically more 'in the know' so to speak. Wesley☀Mouse 01:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Well eurovision.tv actually have 'the dialect of the Mühlviertel region in Austria', so it's not just Mühlviertel who use the dialect, so I wouldn't be very keen to putting it as used. Maybe use 'dialect of Upper Austria' or something like that, it's more all-encompassing than for just one region. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why it should be listed as 'Upper Austria' rather than 'Mühlviertel region'. Like you said, the EBU have it down as 'the dialect of the Mühlviertel region in Austria', they don't mention anything about 'Upper Austria' whatsoever - only the wiki article on that region mentions 'Upper Austria'. We shouldn't stray off the published source after all. Anyhow, upon deep inspection, I have clicked on Mühlviertel, which mentions that it is a region in Upper Austria. The state capital of Upper Austria is Linz, and at the bottom of the Linz article is a "see also" which directs to Austro-Bavarian language that is used in that area. The Austro-Bavarian article has a list of dialects, so perhaps using that as the "language direct" would be more appropriate? Wesley☀Mouse 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion I think Mühlviertel would be too small to justify having its own dialect really. That's really my main opppsition to using it as a name for a dialect. But yeah I think using Bavarian on its own may be more appropriate then quarreling over using such and such a name. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have made myself sound confusing with what I meant. Using Austro-Bavarian would be ideal I think, especially when following all those links I listed in my previous comment, eventually landed on Austro-Bavarian as the language/dialect in the Mühlviertel region. However, having a footnote stating that the dialect is of the Mühlviertel region in Austria (as stated by the EBU themselves) should help provide deeper insight into the language grey-area (which is how I worded the footnote anyway). Wesley☀Mouse 02:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think that makes sense, I think that would work. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Between us Sims, we've solved the language crisis. Why has the 2012 edition turned into a "let's use a different language that hasnb't been used for centuries" contest!? First Albania, now Austria. Will the UK send an entry in the Cornish dialect just to add confusion into the mixture? LOL Wesley☀Mouse 02:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

German. Austro-Bavarian is not a language. --87.160.178.169 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a language expert (apart from French, English and Latin) so why can't we just use what is used on the 2003 article, "Styrian"? Spa-Franks (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Styrian refers to a dialect spoken in Steiermark (Styria). Austro-Bavarian describes just a certain group of varieties of German standard language. If anything it should be put in brackets right behind German. I'd prefer a footnote with a proper explanation though. --87.160.178.169 (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what it says on the '03 page. Therefore we should use "Styrain" for consistency purposes. After all, that links to the language that we want here. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
That is why there is a footnote to explain that it is a dialect of the Austro-Bavarian. Styrian is a dialect from the Styria region, which is in a completely different region, to that of Mühlviertel (which is the regional dialect used in this entry). If you read the entire conversation above, you'll notice how it became finalised on using Austro-Bavarian. Bavaria is a vast region that spans several Alpine countries, Austria being one of them. It would be much easier to refer to this Austria part as "Austro-Bavaria", to prevent others saying "Bavaria is German blah blah blah"; when it fact Bavaria spans more than just Germany. Also, if you click on Mühlviertel, and then follow the link for Upper Austria, you'll notice that the state capital of that region is Linz. Linz then has a "see also" section which directs to the language page for "Austro-Bavarian", and that page has a list of dialects and regional areas each dialect is used. As long as there's a footnote to clear up any grey area, then what is the problem? Wesley☀Mouse 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering for sake of settling a language grey area here, if we should seek point of view from members of the WikiProject Austria team. I'm 99.9% certain that someone from that project would be able to notify us what the dialect is called. Wesley☀Mouse 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a note of advice at WP:AUT (as seen here). Hopefully we will know more from our Austrian counterparts as to what the name of this dialect is actually called, so that we can link it properly on the article. Wesley☀Mouse 16:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Until we have a clear decision, maybe putting the language as "Mühlviertlerisch", which would be the German name for the dialect, and linking to Bavarian may make more sense, as well as including a footnote explaining it further. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to the Styrian question, Styria is a completely different region to Mühlviertel. In terms of Austrian regions Styria would actually relate more to the region of Upper Austria, which Mühlviertel is apart of. From what I can also tell Bavarian in Styria and Upper Austria seems to be different as well, with Styria using Southern Bavarian and Mühlviertel/Upper Austria using Central Bavarian. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what else we can do for sake of resolving the grey area. The EBU had initially classified it as being a dialect from the Mühlviertl region. And now in an EBU video interview (which is on Youtube) they now classify the language as Mühlviertlian dialect. I can see this discussion going on for some time yet. Hopefully though, someone at Project Austria, will be able to assist on what the official dialect name is. I just hope we have an article for whatever it will be, so that it can be linked. But seeing as the EBU are insistent that the language is Mühlviertl, then we shouldn't argue against official sources - after all they know more about this than what we do. Wesley☀Mouse 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have many articles for specific dialects of German anymore. Any Bavarian dialect redirects to the main Bavarian page. This is why I think having "Mühlviertlerisch" and linking to Bavarian makes sense, rather than the creation a stub page. Quality over quantity as they say. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, quality over quantity. There is a German language version of the song too - now why can't they go to Baku with that version, so that we don't get confused LOL. Watch this, come May, the song will be revised into a 'cleaner' English version, and we'll look back on this and giggle to ourselves. Wesley☀Mouse 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Readers briefly skimming through the chart could think Bavarian is a language as the headline suggests. The language is German and explanations of the variety or dialect being used should either be a footnote or put in brackets (if a consensus about the term is reached) only. --87.160.178.169 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Au contraire, but we can only categorise the language as German if reliable sources back-up the information. We can't list it as German if sources state differently, as we'd be then publishing falsified information which contradict the facts. The EBU are the organisers of the contest, and if they have stated that the language is a dialect from the Mühlviertl region, then we need to stick as close to the true facts as possible; even if it also means including a footnote to give further information. Wesley☀Mouse 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out that Bavarian is a recognised language, which can be confirmed via this link. Wesley☀Mouse 19:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What the sources say

In an interview with ESCXtra.com on 23 February the band themselves state the language is a local dialect of the Austrian language. On 24 February the EBU announce the song language as "a dialect of the Mühlviertel region in Austria". And emphasise this more a in a video interview on 25 February stating the dialect is "Mühlviertelian". Not one of the reliable sites mention anything about it being 'German', 'Bavarian', or 'Styrian'. Therefore with the information from the EBU and the band, which language do we settle on? Wesley☀Mouse 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We ultimately have to go with what the sources say, though I think we could make a reasonable distinction between language and dialect. Bavarian is a language as established by the Bavarian language article, so that should take precedance, with the dialect going in a footnote, as it is now. CT Cooper · talk 21:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the distinctiveness between language and dialect is the primary source of confusion here. The tables have a column for "language" and not "dialect". Technically each language has its regional dialect. Take for example British English; there a various dialects ranging from Yorks, Lancs, Wigan, Cockney etc; all are variations of spoken dialects, but ultimately are grouped under the banner "English" Same with Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish; all are regional dialects of Gaelic. As rightfully noted, Bavarian is a language in its own right and warrants its inclusion on the article, even if it does sound similar to German when sung. Perhaps that is why Bavarian, German, Austrian and other similar sounding languages are all "pigeon holed" as Germanic. I suppose dialect is more distinctive when spoken and not sung, and thus the confusion kicks in. That's just my analytic point of view on this. Wesley☀Mouse 21:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Austria, and I just wanted to say, that we would NEVER say that bavarian is spoken in German, although philologists may say that it is, because it sounds similar. Please mind that Austria is a sovereign state and does NOT belong to germany or bavaria. "Styrian" would also be wrong, because Styria is a different region in Austria. Maybe the term "Upper Austrian" or just "Austrian dialect" would be better, but please, please just take this german-bayern-shit out.
P.S. there's a article called Austrian German on Wikipedia, why don't you insert that link?--194.166.94.72 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
In the scientific context (e.g. Heinz Kloss, Joshua Fishman), Bavarian is not acknowledged as a separate language. It serves as a collective term for a major group of nonstandard dialects mainly spoken in southern parts of the German language area. In contrast to Bavarian, all four Irish, Welsh, Scottish and lately Cornish are standardised and used as official languages in respective areas which is why I would disagree on that as well but this don't belong here.
'Austrian German' generally refers to the standard variety of German spoken and written in Austria (like BE And AE) and that does not fit either. --87.160.192.143 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to the Austrian IP user, I do seriously take your opinion on board, and think it would be just as easy to label the language as Austrian, with the footnote explaining that it is a local dialect from Upper Austria. Wesley☀Mouse 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is not a language named 'Austrian' so with all due respect I don't find this solution any better. For good or ill the song is written in Mühlviertelian, which is a dialect of German. As the gap explicitly states 'language' and not a more ambigious item we simply shouldn't circumvent 'German'. Brackets making clear they don't use a standard variety and an additional footnote would be acceptable/good.
PS: I agree with how it's done in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003 article. Just that brackets should be used instead of a comma – otherwise one might think the song is bilingual. Alternatively limit the dialect information to the footnote completely. --87.160.192.143 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Using brackets would be complicate things even more. And there is already a footnote (which is indicated with the little '3' next to the word 'Austrian'), so to create another footnote is utter ludicrous. The IP user above, who is from Austria - stated that stipulating the language as German would be offensive to the people of Austria. We cannot classify it as Styrian, as that is a completely different region of Austria all together. Having it down as German (Mühlviertelian) doesn't look appealing to the eye in all honesty; as in doing it that way would make readers think that Mühlviertel is region of Germany, when in fact its a region of Austria. There is another discussion regarding the 2003, 1996, and 1971 contests. Once we can find a way around this solution then those other contests will be revised using a similar method. Please note what CT Cooper pointed out above, "we ultimately have to go with what the sources say". The band themselves in an interview stated the language is "Austrian", and the EBU have stated twice that it is an Austrian Dialect called Mühlviertelian. There is no wikipedia article for this dialect, and therefore simplifying things to just "Austrian" as per what the band say it is, and a footnote explaining "Mühlviertelian Dialect" is well within boundaries for the purpose of this article. Wesley☀Mouse 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I would also like to point out to the kind IP user:87.160.192.143 that even though the scientific context (e.g. Heinz Kloss, Joshua Fishman) say a language isn't a language - we cannot go off personal opinion like that. A language becomes a classified as a language if it is recognised by the UN. The UN recognise Austrian and Bavarian as languages - so what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Having the article listed as "Austrian Language" is within scope, recognised by the UN, and also stated by the band themselves in an interview (which I attached the reliable source above). So with all those factors on the table, Trackshittaz say its Austrian, the EBU say its Austrian Dialect, even a user above who's motherland is Austria, says its Austrian - that is two reliable sources, and one native who all say the language is "Austrian". Consensus is built, and a footnote has been included to add insight into the fact the language is a dialect from Austria. The column itself says "language" and not "dialect". I'm wondering if people are getting confused with the definitions of language and dialect. Language is spoken/written; dialect is a more localised accent/slang variation of a language. Wesley☀Mouse 19:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No matter what Trackshittaz or the EBU states, a language named Austrian doesn't exist. German (Mühlviertelian dialect) would not look confusing at all. Adjectives of languages are not confined to political territories same as English does not refer only to England. The UN recognizes Austrian as a language? I'd like to see that proven. Never heard of that before.
Apart from this, I am not happy with the translation. Popo is more some kind of belittlement, a term which originates from talking to little children (baby slang) and still is mainly used for that purpose. I find botty (assuming this can be used in teen / adult slang as well) more accurate. Moreover deim (deinem) is singular (better use thy/thine?). --87.160.192.143 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One can only assume that you're struggling to grasp the policies for the purpose of Wikipedia articles here. When adding details to any article, we need to make sure that reliable sources are included to back-up such details, thus creating a notable article that is accurately written from sourced material, without infringing copyright. Now you say that no matter what Trackshittaz or the EBU state, a language doesn't exist. So to ignore their published details would therefore mean we are creating a false accurate article based on personal opinion, rather than basing it on notable facts. Also the same sources, both EBU and the band, state the translation of 'Popo' being 'Ass' or 'booty'. However, non-reliable sources say that 'booty' is the version to be used, and we cannot use unreliable sources - so again, to keep within line of reliability, the sources state 'ass' and therefore ass is what is used until something more reliable can be found. Wesley☀Mouse 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The sourced EBU article doesn't appear to say that "Austrian" is a language, it only talks about the local dialect being "Mühlviertelian". The Wikipedia article on Austrian, at Austrian German, also talks about Austrian being a dialect of the German language. CT Cooper · talk 19:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So why not have it listed as "Mühlviertelian" then? But that still doesn't resolve where we direct the link to, as there is no page for "Mühlviertelian" as a dialect/language. Wesley☀Mouse 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm sounding irrational and narky here, but everytime we seem to build a consensus of how it should be classified, then within hours someone else comes along and argues that the "version" being used is wrong, and we end up back at square one again. This is a neverending case that needs to be brought to an end rather quickly, as it is getting ridiculous. Wesley☀Mouse 20:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've mulled this one over rationally, and have a suggestion that may cover all angles of this language debacle, list the language as "Mühlviertelian" but use a Wikilink directing to Germanic language article - seeing as Germanic is the base of all of these languages being thrown into the discussion pot anyway. In doing this, we'd no longer need the footnote, plus we'd also be able to do similar for 1971 (Viennese), 1996 (Vorarlbergish), and 2003 (Styrian). An idea worth pondering over!? Wesley☀Mouse 20:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hear. You have my vote. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is Mühlviertelian is not a language, it is a dialect, and if we just list "Mühlviertelian" in the column under "Language" we will be saying "Language = Mühlviertelian", which is not what the source says and is incorrect. In short, what is in the box has to be a language, not a dialect, with a dialect only being appropriate in a footnote. I would say go for "German" (though "Austrian German" may be okay), and mention "Mühlviertelian" in a footnote. I understand that this discussion is getting long-winded, but this content once written will stay around for many years, so it will be worth getting it right first time. For the record, this is not the first time there have been disputes over what language a song is in in articles, with language versus dialect problems have been an issue previously with Balkan entries. CT Cooper · talk 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Without contradicting myself here, I am perfectly happy either way, although I agree 'Austrian German' does seem to be more appropriate in this case, along with the footnote explain the dialect issue. Wesley☀Mouse 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with "Austrian German", as it does contain the overarching language (German), and is clearly okay for a song in any Austrian German dialect. If necessary, an additional question and answer can be added to the FAQ to prevent this being a perennial issue, once this is settled. CT Cooper · talk 21:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The direct under the name "Austrian" was going to "Austrian German" anyway, so I've just simplified that link so it shows purely "Austrian German" now, the footnote mentions that about the EBU classifying the entry as being in Mühlviertelian dialect, from the Mühlviertel region of Upper Austria. Do we now go about the same for other previous (and subsequent) articles labelling 'Austrian or German' as Austrian German? Wesley☀Mouse 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That should do nicely. In answer to your question, yes I think so, unless the sources clearly say something different. CT Cooper · talk 21:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider that job in progress Cooper. I start checking all 50+ articles, cross-referencing the sources, and label up 'Austrian German' accordingly, while adding footnotes for the 1971, 1996, and 2003 article to mention the 'dialects'. Wesley☀Mouse 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Although some of the articles didn't even have wikilinks for languages whatsoever, which I found bizarre. Wesley☀Mouse 01:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I can speak anymore, but Austrian German is not applicable in this case. Austrian German is the standard variety of German used in Austria, i.e. German with a few differences. The song is not in standard German, so you can't put down Austrian German for it as it's incorrect. The song is sung in a dialect of Bavarian, so really Bavarian is the only language that can be put down. To anyone who says that Bavarian is only spoken in Bavaria, does that mean that we can't put English for any song other than the UK, or French for France? The Bavarian language spans a large region of Central Europe, as can be read on the Bavarian wikipedia article itself here. So in summary Austrian German is incorrect, and the only correct solution is Bavarian. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oohhhh nooo not again! Sorry Sims, but it was decided for pure argument sake that having Austrian German covered all aspects for Austria, which kept everyone happy. Austrian German, German, Bavarian, and any other similar sounding language all came under the umbrella of "Germanic". But as nobody could settle on what should be used, it was finalised as pure "Austrian German". I spent hours last night reading numerous sources to find valid language details, and in the end 80% of them all labelled Austrian entries as "Austrian German" or "Germanic". After spending all my limited spare time altering all 50+ Eurovision articles to reflect the agreement that labelling the language as "Austrian German" covered all aspects better, now we have a disagreement yet again that puts us back to square one!? I am on the verge of a mental breakdown with this sodding Austrian language debate. Wesley☀Mouse 12:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You see, all we know from sources is that it is a dialect from the Mühlviertel region. There is nothing to say that the language is Bavarian, only the geographical location of Mühlviertel, which is within Bavaria, is what indicates that Bavarian may be the language. But as we have no evidence/sources to say Bavarian is the spoken language in the Mühlviertel region. But as we have established that Mühlviertel is in Austria, then a simple label of Austrian German covers this easier, as long as a footnote expands on the dialect issue - which a footnote currently does. Wesley☀Mouse 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Sims points in more detail, the use of 'Bavarian' is just as incorrect as listing the language as 'Austrian'. Firstly, the link that Sims provided in his comment doesn't even direct to an language article. All that there is on that link is a 3-line article that specifies (and I quote):

:::And then there are the comments that CT Cooper mentioned above (and again I quote)

:::And he goes on further to add

:::So based on that hypothesis, we've established that language goes in the table, dialect is footnoted. Therefore the dialect of Mühlviertelian becomes the footnote, so what becomes the language? We know Mühlviertel is in Bavaria, but we have no evidence that Bavarian is spoken there, all we 99.9% certain know is that Austrian German is spoken - therefore to list the language as that is by far safer than listing it as Bavarian, to which we would only be assuming those facts. The same goes for the 2003 article. Styrian is the dialect, not the language - therefore the same basis should be applied there, Austrian German listed as language, Styrian footnoted as dialect. Wesley☀Mouse 13:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But the fact is Austrian German is not the language the song is performed in, so putting that as the language is jst as incorrect as putting Mühlviertlerisch or Mühlviertelian or anything like that. Austrian German is standard German, the song is not sung in standard German. Styrian is also not a dialect of Austrian German, so it cannot be said to be as such. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think until we get a source definitelvely saying whatever language it actually is in there will never be a clear answer to the question. All I know is that the song is not standard German, it is a dialect of German or possibly a different language, however you classify languages. So I suppose for arguments sake putting Austrian German for now is a better solution than anything else so far. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Listing as Austrian German covers the umbrella of German spoken in Austria, as well as any localised dialects too. If you read the article for Austrian German, the paragraph for Standard German in Austria reads: "With German being a pluricentric language, Austrian dialects should not be confused with the variety of Standard German spoken by most Austrians, which is distinct from that of Germany or Switzerland. Distinctions in vocabulary persist, for example, in culinary terms, where communication with Germans is frequently difficult, and administrative and legal language, which is due to Austria's exclusion from the development of a German nation-state in the late 19th century and its manifold particular traditions. A comprehensive collection of Austrian-German legal, administrative and economic terms is offered in: Markhardt, Heidemarie: Wörterbuch der österreichischen Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungsterminologie (Peter Lang, 2006)". So until we know for certain, then listing Austrian German is by far safer, than to incorrectly list as a different language all together, for which we would only be assuming. Wesley☀Mouse 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A quick Google search for "Mühlviertel dialect" and I have found a source supporting my argument that it is a dialect of Bavarian (more specifically "Austrian Bavarian"): see here. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I do see where Sims2aholic is coming from, although after doing some reading, Bavarian seems to be looked at a dialect of German as well, hence putting that in the box as a "language" could cause problems (the Bavarian language article, despite the title, calls it a "variety" which could mean lots of things). If "Austin German" is not appropriate, as it suggests the song is in standard Austrin German, rather than a local dialect, a simple solution might be just to put "German", as that is the undisputed overreaching language, and put references to Bavarian and the "Mühlviertel dialect" in a footnote. I don't have a strong opinion on which way to go at the moment.
Such a change would not necessarily mean that Wes' recent edits to other Eurovision articles makes them incorrect, as those other entries might well be in standard Austrian German, with this being a special case. CT Cooper · talk 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a read at the google book link that Sims kindly provided, and reading that is just as vague really; especially when a different book (also on Google) states that Upper Mühlviertel is Bavaerian, while Lower Mühlviertel uses Upper Austrian. So Mühlviertel itself uses two varieties of dialects. However the latter book does go on to point out that Upper Austria is lodged in-between Bavaria in the west, and Austria in the east; which would suggest that Bavarian isn't even a dialect used in Mühlviertel. Wesley☀Mouse 15:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support CT Cooper in putting it as German, with a footnote saying that it's Mühlviertlerisch, or a dialect of Mühlviertel. I feel Austrian German is too specific and refers more to standard German, whereas German on its own describes a very broad language with many varieties, dialects, etc. 193.61.159.20 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment to IP:193.61.159.20 - Did I miss the part that Cooper said German would be better? The last I read was
As English is my native tongue, then what has been said by Cooper suggests that; he is fine with either version, but feels if no overall consensus can be found then German language may have to be the ultimate choice to list it as. Wesley☀Mouse 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
CT Copper then put
which is what I was referring to (I was IP:193.61.159.20, had signed-off for some reason)

May I suggest re-signing the comments then so not to confuse people!? And to say Austrian German is too specific and refers to Standard German - then what the hell is German on its own then - non-standard? Wesley☀Mouse 19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just my view, okay. I think German can be a wide variety of things, from various different dialects and varieties. I think putting German as the language and having a reference to Mühlviertlerisch in a footnote is the best solution so far. You could even say that Austrian German is a dialect of German since it's the standard version of German spoken in Austria. I'm just saying this way it closes the argument and we can carry on rather than having a huge edit war on our hands. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of edit warring? Because I am not edit warring, and such accusations is uncalled for. It was agreed for the time being to label as Austrian German, which I spent hours last night changing everything as per conversation between Cooper and myself. You then reverted 2 of my edits to something of your liking - without bringing it to the talk page first to see if it was OK or not. That Sims, indicates someone else edit warring, not me doing the war. I followed a command, you reverted without seeking views. Wesley☀Mouse
I wasn't accusing anyone of edit warring. I was just trying to point out my views and try to bring this to a quick conclusion. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Check this out I stumbled on Languages of Austria now that article is very interesting. It lists the official language as German (Austrian German), with significant unofficial language(s) as Allemanic and Austro-Bavarian. Strangely enough though, it lists Austro-Bavarian as being the native language of Austria. Wesley☀Mouse 19:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading this I think it can be said that Austro-Bavarian is infact a language, and from what I can tell Mühlviertlerisch is a dialect of Bavarian. So in that sense I would think we should put the language as Bavarian, with a footnote describing it as a dialect from Mühlviertel. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't go jumping the gun just yet Sims. Don't forget the other factors that we have spoken about above. Cooper mentioned that Bavarian is a dialect, which is what the Bavarian article also states, not to forget the two google books both you and I found. If Bavarian is a dialect, then to put it down as a language will be more incorrect as labelling it as Austrian. Let's just wait and see what everyone else involved has to say on this new finding before we start altering everything. Do you realise how much time I spent yesterday? 4 hours... 3 hours reading sources, and 1 hour changing everything. I'd be highly pissed off if we end up having to change things back just on your whim say, rather than on an overall consensus. Wesley☀Mouse 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay that's a fair enough point. An overall consensus should be reached before we start changing everything. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Austrian German describes the standard variety of German spoken in Austria. I am sorry to say this, Wesley Mouse, but your drive yesterday was wrong. Please be a little more patient next time and get into basic facts before executing such extemporaneous actions. -87.160.196.65 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the decision yesterday was agreed to list as Austrian German, and that it was fine to list everything in that way. It was only afterwards that the discussion was raised again. And therefore everything should remain as it is for now, until an overall consensus has been reached to determine how the language should be listed. Wesley☀Mouse 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to use one of my infamous quotes... "Before you assume — learn the facts!... Before you judge — understand why!". Please make sure you have read all comments on a talk page to see why such actions have been taken before jumping in with both feet and reverting things when everyone has agreed to leave things as they are until an overall consensus has been built. Thank you - Wesley☀Mouse 23:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A consenus isn't reached with the agreement between two users when there are others who disagree. And I was mainly referring to your solitary knee-jerk action changing German (no dialect) to Austrian German in more than fifty ESC articles. We don't adduce (standard) varieties or dialects of languages under the language column. I'd be surprised if you even checked the varieties that were used. Just yesterday you tried to tell us Austrian is a language. --87.160.196.65 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

{ec} Both Sims2 and I know that only we have spoken about this thus far, which is why we (the 2 of us) agreed to leave everything as it is until others have contributed to the discussion to find a consensus. Changing everything back, without allowing the consensus exercise to take place is defeating the object, and thus making yourself look like the owner of an article, when your not. Anyhow, I've been trying to work on some hypothesis on this since my last posting at 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC), to see if somehow I can get to the bottom of what the language is according to what is available either from Wikipedia articles, or online facts.

According to the article Languages of Austria, German (Austrian German) is the official language; while Allemanic and Austro-Bavarian are the unofficial languages. The article also mentions that even though German is the national official language, it constitues of lingua franca and de facto second language - this in theory is contradicting itself. How can it be the official language if it is the "second language"?

Lets look at what 'lingua franca' means then, to see if this clears things up. Lingua franca is a language used to make communication possible between people who do not share a mother tongue. Therefore this suggests that the two unofficial languages of Allemanic and Austro-Bavarian must be the 2 mother tongues of Austria, and as both languages are varients of German, then lingua franca has been adopted, thus making German the adopted language. This in turn makes Austro-Bavarian and Allemanic dialects, even though they are actually languages.

With those facts we can figure out the following:

  • Allemanic and Austro-Bavarian are the mother tongue of Austria.
  • Both Allemanic and Austro-Bavarian are varients of German
  • This variety, through 'lingua franca' and 'de facto' get combined to create Austrian German (more commonly known as German)
  • So both Austrian German and German are correct, although going off the facts, Austrian German would be the politically correct way to label the language; as we are referring to Austria and not Germany. To say that the label 'Austrian German' refers to Standard German, whereas German is fine; is very contradictory. German language is also Standard German - so it is fine to label German (which is Standard German), but not fine to label as Austrian German (which is also Standard German)? Make sense folk, please! Wesley☀Mouse 23:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Austrian German isn't a language, it's the specification of a certain variety which, unlike just German, implies to be standardized. In this case, however, it certainly is not. For your other edits I may ask you again have you checked independently the varieties for each entry? Maybe Austrian writers wrote in the standard variety of Germany. Do we wanna discuss next if an entry is in American English, British English or Australian English? --87.160.196.65 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I have done my best to assume good faith in your dear IP87.160.196.65, but the accusation tones you use towards me as if I'm a piece of shit is slowly making me assume bad faith in you. Do you really think that I am that thick and imbecilic that I do not know to check sources first before carrying out alterations? You obviously haven't read through all the comments above have you? I spent a total of 4 hours yesterday on this issue; 3 hours spent browsing through tons of reliable websites gathering information; and a further 1 hour making the alterations based on the found information. CT Cooper agreed that as long as I check reliable sources that it was fine to label the relevant ones as 'Austrian German' - to which I have done so. Since then, the debate got raised again, and as the main people discussing this all day were Sims2 and I, we both decided to leave things as they are for now, and allow other to contribute to the debate, so that an overall consensus can be found amicably. Earlier you implied that "A consenus isn't reached with the agreement between two users when there are others who disagree". Nobody said two people had agreed on a consensus, only you have said this - which is a false assumption of what has actually been said. But you, and others keep saying that Austrian German is referring to the meaning of Standard German; and that the label should be German instead. Well to label German, is also referring to Standard German - therefore both would be incorrect. However, German (albeit Standard German) refers to Germany; whilst Austrian German (again referred to as Standard German) refers to Austria. How complicated is that to grasp? Wesley☀Mouse 00:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
4Lyrics.eu (an EBU recognised site) have the language listed as Bavarian. Hopefully now, we have found a closure on this 2012 debacle. Wesley☀Mouse 01:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think what IP 87.160.196.65 is trying to say is that "Austrian German" is in itself a dialect of German, and that it refers to a variety of German that very closely resembles standard German. However there are differences between them, between spelling and vocabularly, as in a similar way to different forms of English: in Britian they say pavement, lift, football, while in America they say sidewalk, elevator, soccer. There are some examples here that show differences between the vocabularly of Austrians and Germans speaking their own varieties of German. Another site, although not associated with the EBU but found to be in high standing, The Diggiloo Thrush, lists the song as Mühlviertlerisch, and expands to say that it is a dialect of German. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
That said I think an EBU recognised site would be better informed in the situation. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What I meant about 4Lyrics, is that the website was promo-featured along with a few other websites via the Eurovision.tv site. I had provided a full list of the promo-featured sites which can be found here. Unfortunately Diggiloo Thrush didn't appear on as a promo-feature; why that is, I do not know - perhaps the EBU don't see them as high enough standard. But at least, using 4Lyrics.com, we are able to provide a reflink to show language choice of Austria 2012 as Bavarian. Its the ref that counts most right!? As for this Austrian German thing, you actually touched on the point that I have been trying to put across all this time - the fact that German used in Austria has different spelling and vocabulary to that of German used in Germany - therefore making terminology 'Austrian German' more politically correct in regards to anything Austrian related, and German to anything that is Germany related. The same 'political correctness', for better choice of phrase, would apply for English used in its respective nations. Using common sense, you would easy differentiated between American English and British English, purely by the way certain words are spelt, and the vocabulary used. That's what it boils down to, common sense. An example of this "common sense" that I speak of can actually be found via this Wikipedia Information Page, note what is said on the 5th bullet point. Then maybe you'll see where I'm heading towards in this debacle. Wesley☀Mouse 00:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to add Sims, that I read the link you provided above, and found that very interesting. But strangely enough, the whole article appears to contradict itself. It says that "German" (or Standard German) is the official language, but then says that it is 'lingua franca', making it an adoptive 3rd tongue. But in in this part of the same article it classifies "Standard German" as an Austrian dialect - how can this be so? Wesley☀Mouse 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading isogloss the plot thickens even more, and we're none the wiser to this saga. Everything we find contradicts the previous articles we provide in the hope to work this out. Its an neverending loop-hole. The link Austrian_German#Vocabularly provides an interesting list of vocab/spelling differences between Austria and Germany. However, further down the same article is goes on to classify Standard German as being an Austrian Dialect - this contradict the opening sentence which states (Standard) German is the official language This wikiarticle stipulates that German language is in Germany, and this chapter advises when to seek professional help. So with all the confusion from wiki's own articles, I do believe the only way to find resolution now is to get someone from either Project Linguistics, Project Languages, or both. - Note to CT Cooper; this particular discussion thread is getting overly lengthy, is there anyway to shorten it down, like using a show/hide box thing just for this, or perhaps closing this one (similar to how AN/I do) and start a new smaller one. Wesley☀Mouse 00:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that since Austrian German as different vocab and spelling to German used in Germany, would that not then be classified as a dialect of German? If this whole discussion have brought anything about it's that we shouldn't be putting dialects into the language column. As well the section talking about standard German is called Dialects and standard language, so it's not all about dialects. When they talk about lingua franca I think they're trying to say that most people in Austria would know German, through its use in education and so forth, but that at home they would use their own dialects: Bavarian, Vorarlbergerisch, etc. In a similar way that English is a lingua franca, most countries teach English in schools in order to facilitate global communications but it is only spoken as a first language of a relatively few percentage of the population. I think through all the articles, references and ideas put forth it's obviously that the song isn't in standard German, and since the duo are from Upper Austria it does seem more and more likely that the language being sung is Bavarian. I'm not trying to write over everyone else, and I'm not unilaterally deciding anything. Everyone deserves to bring their own views forth, as I am now. But from what I can tell I think the cat is finally starting to come out of the bag on this one. In classifying whether Bavarian is a language or a dialect, the fact that it has an ISO 639-3 shows that the ISO thinks that it is a language in its own right. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
In my experience the official language does not necessarily mean that the majority of the population speak it as their first language. For example in Ireland (Republic) the first official language is Irish, however only about 5% of the population speak it as their first language. It is mainly for cultural reasons that the Irish government gave Irish such a role in the country. I think the same can be said here. It makes more sense to have a standard language as the official language of the country, a language that everyone can understand and use to communicate with each other, even if most people use their own languages at home or in their own communities. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Sims, I think you may have mis-read what I have put, or gone off on a tangent somehow. They way you understood 'lingua franca' appears to be complete polar opposite to the way I understood it, and I read the thing thrice over, to the point I ended up dreaming about the article, word for word - fingers-crossed a question comes up about lingua franca at the pub quiz on Thursday, as that article has been imprinted into my brain LOL. You didn't seem to mention about the 'common knowledge' article (Wikipedia:Common_knowledge#Acceptable_examples_of_common_knowledge) that I also provided, which gave a lot of details in simplified terminology that even a 7-year old could grasp with ease. But like I suggested, we're none the wiser in all of this, and maybe it is time to get the professionals in (as suggested in the Wikipedia:Common_knowledge#When_to_seek_professional_help article) - I'll submit a formal request to WP:LING and maybe even one with Portal:Language too - but we'd all have to agree that what the professional says would be the ultimate answer in all theory. Even I'm willing to accept that if the professionals say it should be listed as 'German' then so be it. However, if they say its actually 'Austrian German' then again, we'd have to accept their word for it. Wesley☀Mouse 01:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should bring someone else in to give a second opinion. We've been going through circles about this for days, so another opinion would be great. They would undoubtingly be more aware of what is right or wrong so they would be better informed about what way to go. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Formal submission to Project Languages

I've submitted an advice request at WT:LANG, which can be found here. Wesley☀Mouse 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A response has been made at WT:LANG regarding the language choice, and how to 'categorise' it. Here is a copy-quote of what has been said.

Wesley☀Mouse 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Could everyone involved, please read the information from WT:LANG (quoted above) and then we can work on what steps to take next. I propose that no further reversions be made until everyone has read the decision from WT:LANG first. Wesley☀Mouse 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
With regard to contents, the response advocates the use of German which also seems to be the most correct solution since all other terms do not describe widely recognized languages. As for the other Eurovision articles, it is to note that Austrian German is not a language on its own right but a standard variety of German. As e.g. British English is of English. However, the colums clearly demands languages. Furthermore a differentiation would result into checking up on each single entry and the variety used in it. An Austrian ESC song in German doesn't necessarily need to be in Austrian Standard German. Sources for that were missing as well. --87.160.154.223 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate if the IP user above, refrained from posting uncalled for comments such as this one; this one; this one; naming calling like this one; and comments that obviously are meant to provoke like this one. It is very uncivil, and most certainly uncalled for. I would kindly ask that such directed comments be struck-through. Thank you! Wesley☀Mouse 18:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Having read the response it seems that putting 'German' as the language, and placing a footnote below which expands upon it, seems to be the fairest and simplest solution. It removes any need for discussion about "language or dialect", and also removes any need to signify what type of German it is in the table. As has been said before, we don't put British English or Belgian French or Swiss Italian, it's the same concept here. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This is what I thought too. Although saying that, according to Wikipedia articles, there is no such language as "British English" or American English". Apparently, American English is a set of dialects of the English language - English taking its name from its origins as the native tongue of the people of England. And that being said and to look on it in a similar way, German would take its name from its origins as the native tongue of the people of Germany, thus making Austrian German a set of dialects of the German language - at least that is how I now interpret it after reading WT:LANG's outcome, and also reading more on the English language; and speaking to someone at my darts match last night - who is Austrian born. Even he said the Austrian's do frown upon having their language labelled as German, when they are not from Germany - he feels being labelled in such a way takes away their sovereignty as being Austrian. Weird huh!? Wesley☀Mouse 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The other point worth noting from WT:LANG's analysis is that they say using "German" is accurate, but not precise. Isn't precision and accuracy the same thing? Wesley☀Mouse 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be my viewpoint on it as well, that Austrian German could be seen as a set of dialects of German. When they say accurate, they mean that the song is definitely in German, it's just not in standard German but in a dialect, so therefore it's not as precise as putting "Mühlviertel Austro-Bavarian" for example. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see the viewpoint from others on the project too about this. So far there only seems to be 3 people (4 if you count Moyogo from WT:LANG) , which isn't really enough to build a consensus around, in my opinion. Wesley☀Mouse 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if anything now, based on the above, I'd say if we list all Austrian entries as "German", then a footnote be added to show "Austrian German dialect", same with 1971, 1996, and 2003 entries - listing those as German, and footnoting the dialect below. Unless we review the column itself and label that as language/dialect; thus allowing the option for a dialect be added instead of a language in rare cases like this. Wesley☀Mouse 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should add a footnote to every single Austrian entry just to say it's Austrian German. It makes no sense in my mind. If you do that then it would result in every single entry having a footnote saying what type of version of the language it is, Belgian French, Belgian Dutch, Swiss Italian, British English, etc etc. In my mind standard German in both Germany and Austria is essencially the same thing, only with a few vocabulary changes, which can be found in almost every different version of a language. It doesn't have to be noted, as I think any German speaker can understand the majority of Austria's entries that were written in German. 1971, 1996 and 2003 are different, since they are not standard German, but other than that an extra footnote on every single Austrian entry in the entire contest's history just to say it's a certain version of German seems unneccesary, and quite franckly a waste of time and energy. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have misinterpreted my previous comment Sims. From what WT:LANG said, listing as German would be accurate; but a footnote to show dialect would make it precise. That would imply listing everything in my mind. But I had thought that it would end up having a plethora of footnotes to cover the same for other countries too; which is why I said would it note be easier to revise that particular column heading to 'language/dialect' thus covering every angel, and would in turn remove the need for footnotes. Wesley☀Mouse 13:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think that would make sense, including dialects in the tables. In this case Austria this year would be "Mühlviertlerisch", yes? But what I was saying before is that I don't see how listing a song as "Austrian German" is any more relevant or necessary than just listing it as "German". Yes I understand certain words here and there are different, but it is essentially the same language. We don't list Belgian entries as "Belgian French" or Swiss entries as "Swiss Italian" or "Swiss French". They too have slight vocabulary differences, but they are still very much the same language as French used in France and Italian used in Italy. So I believe Austrian entries sung in the standard version of German should be listed as just simply "German". A possibility is linking it to the "Austrian German" page, but having the German entry as "German" and the Austrian entry as "Austrian German" doesn't seem to make sense in my mind. For dialects, such as in 1971, 1996 or 2003 we can use the dialects there, ie Viennese, Voralbergish and Styrian, and now Mühlviertlerisch in 2012. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree on that point about how it should be link-directed. Entries for Germany labelled as "German" (if sung in that language) and directed to German language (which would look like this German); while Austria also labelled as 'German' but link-directed to the Austrian German language article (which would look like this German). That way the links are directing to their respective articles. Only problem with respect to '71, '96, '03, and '12 entries is that we have established now they are in dialects and not language, so they would need to be relabelled as 'German' (with the direct link to Austrian German) and footnoted with the dialect. Wesley☀Mouse 14:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Sims, fancy a bit of team-work here? If I start relabelling Austrian entries between 1956 - 1979; would you mind do the ones between 1980 - 2012? Wesley☀Mouse 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Although I still fail to see the point in the whole action I'd accept the compromise as it doesn't impair reading fluency at least. My only remaining concern would be that not all Austrian entries necessarily used Austrian standard vocabulary. Someone better go through all of them and check which variety they are in (if procurable, I guess in most cases it won't be). Doesn't need to be straightaway though.
Next step would include altering the non-English Swiss entries (except 1989) and Belgian entries as well as the Finnish entries of 1990 and 2012.
Apart from that, I totally agree with the solution for the dialect entries. --Vinceno V (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The point, which you may be failing to see, is that German would still be listed, but as we cannot label a dialect, and there is the issue of Austrian German being labelled, then it is fair enough to just label as German, in respect of both Germany and Austria - but using directing links to Austrian German and German language respectively. That way if a reader was to click on the word German next to an Austrian entry, it would direct to Austrian German article, and not German-German article (and vice versa for Germany entries). I don't understand what you mean about non-English Swiss entries. I can only assume you mean would we need to use a similar method of labelling those as "French/German/Italian" and directing to Swiss French/Swiss German/Swiss Italian etc.. Wesley☀Mouse 16:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
What you probably don't see is that German language is not linked to the political structure named Federal Republic of Germany. That misconception might be the actual reason why we go round in cirlces all the time. However, you're right I tried to say that then we also would need to redirect to Swiss Standard German, Belgian French and Flemish respectively. Others such as Finland Swedish or Swiss French are not officially recognized standard varieties but they too needed checks whether it is necessary to state in footnotes that they are dialects.
Finally, making it clear once again: if done consistently I am not opposed to this compromise but honestly it requires lots of work and eventually makes it more complicated than it had to be – in my opinion. --Vinceno V (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a serious problem with going back and changing everything. Is this option really the best? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is better than having for one country a 'non-language' in the language columns. Maybe we should wait a little seeing what others still may say though. ---Vinceno V (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion I think we should just add dialects to the tables themselves rather than a footnote. It makes it more readable, is more direct and less likely to cause confusion. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Vinceno V that not every Austrian entry includes Austria-only vocab, so it might not be always accurate. However for the moment it works as a compromise. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

4Lyrics.com had all the Austrian entries from the past listed as "Austrian German" with exception to 1971, 1996, 2003, and 2012. And I agree with Doktorb comments. Wesley☀Mouse 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but 4lyrics.eu lists every Austrian entry sung in German or a dialect of as simply "German". Dunno where you see "Austrian German" anywhere on the site. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going senile, they did have them listed as Austrian German the other day when I did the checks. Wesley☀Mouse 18:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying you are. But right now they're all listed as "German", can't deny the facts. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said you did. The phrase "I'm not going senile" is a figure of speech used where I come from. Generally said whenever we have seen something once, and then it mysteriously disappears the next - as in this case with 4Lyrics. If they are changing language details sporadically, then I don't think the website should be trusted whatsoever - consistency from a lyrics wesbite is far better than sporadic detail changes whenever it suits them. But like dokotrb said, is it the best option to start changing everything now, when we're not 100% certain ourselves - nothing 'solid' or reliable enough to source details from at this current time. The EBU use to list song languages; but since they reformatted the website in 2010, those language details appear to be omitted. If anything, I'd say we need to find sites endorsed by the EBU, national broadcasters, or artists that show language details. Wesley☀Mouse 20:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I regularly use 4lyrics.eu, and I've never seen any lyrics listed as "Austrian German". As for changing everything, we changed everything when we weren't sure about ourselves the first time. I think maybe changing everything back to the way it was before this whole thing erupted would be better then simply blanket-labelling every German language Austrian entry as "Austrian German" when it isn't necessarily using Austria-specific vocabulary. These songs are definitely sung in German, but not necessarily using Austrian German. If you want someone to change it all back then I volunteer. I think the current situation as it is is not completely accurate, while it was a week or two ago. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Like I said to Vinceno V, when he was the IP user. WP:PREFER would come into this over Status quo. Wesley☀Mouse 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I can accept that. That said it does mention that reverting the pages to what existed before this conversation took off is also an option. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just when we thought it couldn't get any more confusing, Diggiloo Thrush now have the language for 2012 song listed officially as Mühlviertlerisch. Oh dear Lord! No offence to Austrians, but why not just have one language, and not so many that we get in a pickle like this. Wesley☀Mouse 02:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we may need to go down the WP:BRD route; as we are in an endless deadlock cycle here - and BRD appears to be the final option to resolve this (to which the guidelines at BRD do suggest). If Diggiloo Thrush is being used as the primary source for "first appearances of a language at Eurovision", then I would say that the same website should be used to list/source ref ALL languages throughout all Eurovision articles - thus keeping things consistent. Failing that, then we're just going to be running around in circles like headless chickens. Wesley☀Mouse 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I would agree. We've gotten into a huge back-and-forth over this with no clear consensus at all. One person says one thing, another objects, etc. The usage of Diggiloo Thrush I think is probably the best solution to this deadlock we've come into, and since there's already a consensus of using it in the "first languages" page it makes sense to use it across all ESC pages. If I had one qualm to make it's their usage of Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian in entries for Yugoslavia between 1961 and 1992. From what I can tell the official languages of Yugoslavia (SFR) were Slovene, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian, and the notion of seperate languages in Serbo-Croatian hadn't come into existance until the 1980s and the start of the drive for independence in Croatia, Bosnia etc. However I think this is a minor point and in order to resolve this whole thing I don't think it's very important. Diggiloo's [1] says that they use Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin based upon the singer's background, and there is a relative mutual intelligibility between the languages anyway, just slight differences in spelling, etc (as can be read about here). But all in all using Diggiloo Thrush is an excellent idea and I welcome it. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hold onto something quickly before reading this next bit - hallelujah we've somehow untangled ourselves out of a deadlock - I am glad I stumbled upon WP:BRD at the eleventh hour lol. Only snag with going down this route of using Diggilo is that they are listing Austrian 2012 as Mühlviertlerisch - and some editors don't like the use of that in the article - but, if we're to settle on a compromise as per WP:BRD then they'll just have to grin and bear that choice I suppose; otherwise we'll still be here in the year 3012 trying to figure out a solution. As for Diggiloo's "personal" choice to list entries for Yugoslavia between 1961 to 1992 as Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian; technically I can see their reasoning behind that. Yugoslavia was a combined state of formerly independent nations; until the devolution of states in the mid-90's. So in theory if the Yugoslav singer was from Bosnia, then yes I would say they spoke Bosnian (although some would argue and say NO they sang in Yugoslavian). Its like trying to tell someone who speaks Welsh, that they are actually speaking British - you just wouldn't dare say it to them. But may we now raise a glass and celebrate the fact we are on the verge of getting out the shackles of chains that bound us to the ground, and on our way to resolving this once and for all. Wesley☀Mouse 15:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I can see their reasoning behind it as well, though that said I feel the use of Serbo-Croatian for Yugoslav entries would be more correct since that was the name of the lanaguage used until the independence drive in the early 90s when distinction was made between the differences in each state. However as a compromise I will accept the use of individual languages, just so we can move forward. I'm not entirely sure if I understand other editors' objections to the use of Mühlviertlerisch - is it because it's a dialect rather than a language or something else? If that is the case I think a compromise would be to put down "German" instead and put Mühlviertlerisch in a footnote, since Diggiloo does put that Mühlviertlerisch is a dialect of German. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to be very bold, and say just go with what Diggiloo have things listed - keeps things consistent. If we're going to have the "first appearance of a language" article listed primarily off Diggiloo's information, then that consistency needs to be carried on throughout all the articles. Although to save time, I'd suggest we put a ref tag in the language columns only, to each respective year article of Diggiloo's that we will be using as a source - that way it covers the entire year, rather than ref tagging each individual entry. Wesley☀Mouse 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my objection was that Mühlviertlerisch is a dialect not a language, and hence should be in a footnote. I was happy with the proposed compromise of having German as the language with a Mühlviertlerisch footnote, which is compatible with what Diggiloo is saying. CT Cooper · talk 17:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
So is it safe to say we've finally reached a compromising conclusion; and can officially draw a line on what has felt like a long-winded debacle? Wesley☀Mouse 17:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would hope so yes. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think so as well Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK sorted. Seeing as I was the one who mass-altered the articles in the first place based on a previous consensus (which has now been overturned and recompromised); then I shall start fixing my mistakes, and ref-tag Diggiloo as source for language. Bear with me though, as this is a larger than normal exercise; and won't easily be done as fast as some would like. I'll target myself 3 days to get the mission completed. Wesley☀Mouse 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well if you need help then I volunteer. Shouldn't be too difficult really, I think what Wiki has already is very close to what Diggiloo have, just need to change a relatively few number of entries. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sims, but if I don't fix my own mistakes, then I'm not going to learn from them in the long-run. Besides, I'm now using refToolbar, which is speeding things up a little. Wesley☀Mouse 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. That said, two computers are better than one! Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL. I'm travelling through time faster than Doctor Who - already I've done 1956 - 1972; not bad work huh? Wesley☀Mouse 23:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Between Sims2aholic8 (Michael) and I, we have managed to get a task done - and as a team too. Now quick, someone archive this thread before people change their minds again - only joking, take your time! Wesley☀Mouse 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dorians are willing to represent Armenia.

This isn't official, but it's a possibility for Armenia's participation in Baku.

Source - http://www.escdaily.com/interview-dorians-are-willing-to-represent-armenia-in-baku/

La Europa (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Until we know 100% certain, then we shouldn't include those details on the article just yet; as Armenian delegations stated a decision will be made by 18 March 2012 (a matter of weeks away). I'm sure we can wait a little longer for more accurate information, if a decision has been made early. Wesley☀Mouse 17:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian song

The original sources stated the song as "Black and White", but ESCTV source, now lists it as the transliteration title from Macedonian Cyrillic as "Crno E Belo" (Original: "Црно Е Бело"). However, 'E' ('Е') is not Macedonian for 'and' but 'I' ('И') is? Also other Cyrillic languages for example use; Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian also use И; Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian also do not use 'Е'.

However, "Crno E Belo" does however mean "Black is White". -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the cut and paste move through use of the admin tools so the page title is Crno I Belo, and other Eurovision pages now point to this. CT Cooper · talk 12:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Atomic Kitten rumours for United Kingdom

The tabloid newspaper, Daily Star on Sunday, are reporting that Atomic Kitten have been internally selected, the EBU are also quoting this report. However, there are no official confirmations from the BBC as of yet. I'm constantly watching the BBC's pages (including Twitter and Facebook) for news on this latest rumour - also following Atomic Kitten and the members individually on Twitter. So far no confirmations, although the band members appear to be excited that "AK" (as they write it) as trending again following this report. Wesley☀Mouse 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for an official BBC Press Office/Twitter/Facebook. As you know, we don't rumours. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why I thought it be best to forewarn everyone quickly before someone (and we know someone would) post the rumour onto the article as if it was gospel truth. Band member, Liz McClarnon's twitter page says its a "no" though; while Jenny Frost and Natasha Hamilton appear to be "excited" that "AK" are trending all of a sudden. One user already attempted to add Atomic Kitten to the UK page as seen in this diff. Wesley☀Mouse 00:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep those eyes peeled then. I've added their Twitter accounts to follow. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking highly like wildfire rumours. Liz McClarnon has tweeted "Wow atomickitten trending in 2012, Amazing!! I love rumours .... Xx". Wesley☀Mouse 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Never use the Daily Star as a reliable source. Welshleprechaun 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
That is why the Daily Star has been used as a source for the 'alleged' information, and not being sourced as if it was gospel truth. Wesley☀Mouse 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

UK announcement (Artist and Song) to be announced by the BBC at 23:30 CET (22:30 GMT). Wesley☀Mouse 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Help me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anri Jokhadze... Proposer makes no concessions. And what should I do? I'm an author of this article.--U.Steele (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added my 2 pence worth, since WP:Artist covers the painting type, whilst WP:MUSICBIO covers musicians. NOTE: may be notable if it meets at least ONE of the following criteria:
  1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Yes, many BBC, EBU, GPB.
  2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. May become relevant soon
  3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Eurovision itself?
  5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
  6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
  7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
  8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
  9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.Eurovision, Georgian National Final
  10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network.
  12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.Eurovision (EBU), Georgian National Final (GPB)

-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

May I step in and point out that Anri passes only criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO? He doesn't pass #2 per WP:CRYSTAL, #4 since Eurovision is not considered a tour, #9 since a national final is not considered a major music competition, and #12 since he's not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment (he wasn't the featured subject of the national final). – Kosm1fent 12:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes the dreaded WP:Crystal, I see what you mean, although it seems the article is to be kept so far. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not WP:CRYSTAL--U.Steele (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Are those albums in Georgia's national music charts? If not, it's not sure that his newest album will enter the Georgian charts.
Indeed AxG, the singer passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, there is no doubt about it. However, I'm not sure if WP:BLP1E applies here... – Kosm1fent 14:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Be sure, he's not a one hit wonder; it remains only to prove. However, I hope my article won't be deleted.--U.Steele (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Proof is essential in Wikipedia. – Kosm1fent 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
WHAT!!!!!? I have never seen anything so ridiculous in my life as this. If the article gets deleted ,then we'd might as well start deleting all the articles for one-time participants of Eurovision, and create a massive black hole in this project. The article (and any other one-time artist articles) warrants a creation for the purpose of this very project. People doing research for pub quizzes, Eurovision studies, or whatever reason a person would need to know such details, would find such articles useful - especially when they are written in English. Whoever nominated for deletion needs to serious check themselves into a brain hospital, and have those little grey cells recalibrated back to planet Earth. Wesley☀Mouse 17:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That actually made me laugh. But returning to seriousness, Wesley makes a very good point. We could end up with people such as F.L.Y., Jemini, Josh Dubovie etc. articles deleted, so this person is inconsistent as well as not using the family brain cell at the moment. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I put my two-penny worth in at the articles for deletion page, but without using the Hercule Poirot quote "little grey cells". And the person has now withdrawn the nomination, but lazily hasn't removed the deletion tag from the article itself - tsk tsk - the brain cells have gone into hibernation I think. Wesley☀Mouse 18:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have formally closed the AfD and removed the tag. CT Cooper · talk 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Austrian song to be performed in English

Sorry guys, couldn't resist, things were getting a bit heated. I couldn't help thinking of this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKCPjONbeQY) doktorb wordsdeeds 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? The youtube link is the 1997 entry. We're talking about the 2012 Austrian entry. Plus Trackshittaz said in an interview, which is reliable sourced too, that they won't be revising the song into English for the contest, they wish to promote their 'dialect'. Wesley☀Mouse 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to be funny. "One step forward, two steps back", exactly as the above discussion seems to be going. It was my attempt at humour. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh now I get it. Sorry having a blond moment today. My head is seriously hurting with all this 'is it Austrian; German; Bavarian; Timbucktooian' debacle. A pure and simple 'Austrian German' surely covers all the languages/dialects spoken in Austria. Failing that we might as well just label every language as 'globalish' that should cover the entire world LOL. Wesley☀Mouse 15:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Slovenian language

Slovenia (Verjamem with Eva Boto) might translate their song to English, as a few other countries... CoolAbc (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say we're use to this concept of language change by now - happens every year. But until an announcement is made to say the song will be translated into a new language, then the article is best showing the current "language" version. Best way to view it is, everything is 'subject to change' at any given moment. Hope that answers your query - Wesley☀Mouse 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You, And I think it's good this way! CoolAbc (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Sara Cox

Sara Cox was added the 'Commentators' section by Peterwill (talk · contribs), with the edit summery;

"She mentioned it live on Loose women that she will be going again, but apart from a digital spy forum link, I cannot. find a paper source, however, personal confirmation should qualify."

This is not sourced yet by the BBC, but if true, then {{cite episode}} could be used, however, I've no idea when the episode was. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just add a citation needed tag on there. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way of changing is slightly as that tag looks like it's both Mills and Cox dubious, which, obviously, is not true. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
{{Reference necessary}} added which also adds a slight dotted line under her name. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone thought to check on the Loose Women website, to see if there is anything in there that we can use as a source? Wesley☀Mouse 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now Wesley, good idea, unfortunately the only thing I could find was this from last October. No mention of Eurovision though. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I went to have a look on there too, and got carried away watching past episodes instead - how sad am I LOL. Wesley☀Mouse 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian problems

I just added the "important bits" to the Macedonian entry[1] but this is clearly "Black is white" when directly translated into English. She then went on to sing her song again in English, as "Black & White." I have provided "Black & White" as the translation, even though it's "Black is White". It's Albania all over again, isn't it? Spa-Franks (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Webb, Glen (29 February 2012). "FYR Macedonia,Kaliopi presents Crno E Belo". EBU. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
MKTV are much more educated in Cyrillic. ;) [2] -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian song

I think next to the Bulgarian entry, which is Sofi Marinova's Love Unlimited, in the section language of the song should not only be Bulgarian, but Turkish, Greek, Spanish, Serbian, French, Romani and Azeri, because the chorus is sung in 7 different languages. Please take this in notice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.225.35 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That would make the table a bit akward. If the main language is Bulgarian, I vote for keeping that and, if needed, adding the rest in a footnote. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree Wesley☀Mouse 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past I think only the main language has ever been listed. It's quite a common thing to find that singers throw a few phrases in other languages into their songs, but the main language, and therefore the main lyrics, meaning and understanding, is in the primary language. However any phrases that are added to the page should be in a footnote, I agree. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Engelbert Humperdinck

The Telegraph are running with Engelbert Humperdinck, It's times like these I don't know what to trust. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just hang in there AxG. The BBC and EBU are simultaneously making the announcement 22:30 GMT (23:30 CET). A lot of sources have leaked that a Grammy Award winner has been selected - with Adele being at the top of the speculation list; others are also saying Tom Jones, as he is Welsh, and today is St David's Day. Wesley☀Mouse 21:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally I can't see it being Tom Jones, as he is at V Festival 2012 - Wesley☀Mouse 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the link appearing, I'm now getting a 404? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup its 404 - I think the BBC will have told the Telegraph to remove the story. We know how sensitive the BBC fatcats can be on things like this Wesley☀Mouse 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The BBC have just announced it now... it is Engelbert Humperdinck Wesley☀Mouse 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan's song

The source link for Azerbaijan's song doesn't work. There isn't even anything mentioned on Eurovision.tv or ESCToday about a song being chosen yet - are those details in the table correct; or should they be deleted until we know 100% certain what the song is called? Wesley☀Mouse 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that - found details via ESCDaily, which I shall add to the article now. Wesley☀Mouse 18:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I made the update, following news from Azerbaijani news portals. I put the most reliable source at the moment, which was ITV, the actual broadcaster and channel responsible for the song. (Davidcolombia96eng (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC))

The link from ÍTV wasn't working though - when I clicked on it, I got '404 error'. Luckily ESCDaily.com have published an article a few moments ago, which is very resent in chronological terms. Wesley☀Mouse 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
But wait, I went back to the ITV page a few moments before it was shut down, and I heard the song closely. It is actually an old song that Sabina used during "Milli Secim Turu". It might have been a hoax coming from ITV! I've erased the info, and put back the 17 March date. (Davidcolombia96eng (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC))
OK, it is better to be safe than add "hoaxed" details to the article. Someone has added the details on other articles too, I'll chase around and remove them quickly. Wesley☀Mouse 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here I go again

I post here just to let you know I am sorry I couldn't help improving this project during the last couple of weeks but I was busy with a school play + a schoolastic competition, but from now on I am ready to get in it! I will help with information from the Romanian+Moldovan national finals and afterwards with anything else required. Innano1 (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC+2)

Welcome back from your wikibreak. Wesley☀Mouse 20:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

TBA or TBD?

Whilst TBA is grammatically correct, I want to use TBD for consistency. Spa-Franks (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it just a technicality? – Kosm1fent 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It's like a little hint to say that Sweden are determining its artist and song, whilst the UK is to announce its song; but not determining it. Sorry for being a bit nitpicky about it:) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say both are find, depending on the selection process. TBD (to be determined) would be appropriate for selection processes such as Sanremo, Melodifestivalen, processes that have an elimination type. Whereas if we know 100% certain it is an announcement of an internal selection, then it would be TBA (to be announced). Wesley☀Mouse 22:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Then can't it be To Be Disclosed? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Not really. The official meaning for the abbreviation for TBD in this case would be To Be Determined. List of what TBD means. Wesley☀Mouse 17:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a long shot on my part. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the definitions, TBD can also mean To be declared, which would suit both internal and public decision. An internal announcement such as the UK would be technically "declared" by the BBC; as would the announcement of a public vote such as Sanremo, Melodifestivalen, that too would be "declared". But as the D in TBD is more commonly known as decided/determined, then it may cause confusion. Wesley☀Mouse 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I only asked because I like to sort by song selection dates, as a lot of people might do. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

norway will participate in 2013

in fact, they are already considering where to host next year`s selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, sources would be good though, if there are any. Although it is a little too early to be creating an article for ESC 2013, especially when we don't know who the host will be yet. Wesley☀Mouse 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing. (i didn't know where to post this, but since this is considered norway in the contest here I go.) Olav Viksmo-Slettan is going to return as a commentator for Norway. He confirmed this in a NRK-chatroom during Melodi Grand Prix.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

link to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Since Armenia is no longer in the table listing the participating countries, the existing link to the "Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012" article has been removed, I'm not sure where it should be added to put it back in this article. Meowy 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Link restored. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW, there is an issue in the "Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012" article - in the section about Armenia's withdrawal an editor is adding some content about a private petition signed by some 20 individuals, pop singers in Armenia, against Armenia's participation. This material seems to me to be not notable and also off-topic: those signing it were not involved with the 2012 competition, are not persons of cultural or political notability, and the petition was unconnected to Armenia's withdrawal. The aim behind the inclusion of the material seems to be to distract readers from the actual announced reason for Armenia's withdrawal and to trivialise that announced reason. It has even been given eight sources, normally an indication of some artificial and undue weight being given to something that doesn't deserve it. Thoughts? Meowy 20:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
And the same editor has just added the same weasily-worded off-topic content to this article. Meowy 20:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT, is the simple answer. If its unsourced, and non-notable; just remove the content. Wesley☀Mouse 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I did remove it as being not notable, and the other editor put it back in again. The issue needs looking at by a wider audience. Meowy 20:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps leaving a message on the users talk page, and invite them to engage in a discussion about it on this talk page. Try and work on some agreement whether to include it or not. Some of those sites appear to be dubious, so I'm sceptical to their sourcing. Wesley☀Mouse 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Information on Armenia's pullout is currently spread out between Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest, Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, and this article. Since the Armenia 2012 article is the one dedicated to this subject, most of the information should be in that article, with only brief summaries being necessary on the other two pages. There certainly shouldn't be information on Armenia in this article which is not in the Armenia 2012 article. Looking at the edit history of the Armenia 2012 page, there appears to be disagreement that needs to be resolved. CT Cooper · talk 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I could accept an argument for the petition by 20-or-so pop singers content being on the Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. That article does deal with more general issues and not things specific to the contest's participants or organisers. Meowy 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason for removal of info about this petition. It is mentioned in almost every major source that reported the Armenian withdrawal, including NYT, AFP, Russian RIA Novosti, etc. If all those major news outlets found it necessary to mention it, why should not we? In fact, it shows that Armenia would withdraw under some pretext anyway. This information is properly sourced, so I see no good reason to suppress it. Grandmaster 01:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the claim that I added some "weasily-worded off-topic content" to this article is so far from truth. Anyone can check my edit and see that I only corrected the info that already was in the article: [3] It did not concern the user who complains here when it was inaccurate and out of date, but after my edit it suddenly became "weasily-worded" and "off-topic". I think such accusations are not in line with WP:AGF. Grandmaster 01:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are those sources reliable enough though? That is the main worry really. We've had a few problems in the past with news agency websites from that region of Europe, which has been discussed numerous times over the last few months. Wesley☀Mouse 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Meowy here that the information Grandmaster added largely consists of fluff - it's weaselly-worded and dwells too much on the private actions of a few individuals. I don't see that as counting much for notability because the actual reason Armenia pulled out of the contest was because of the fact that Azerbaijan made it clear through rhetoric that it was unable to guarantee the safety of the participants. Just because it made the news doesn't necessarily mean we have to include it, and I think it would be much better to shorten the entire section to a single sentence with a single source, not add 6-7 sources and blow the entire matter out of proportion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I made an error in suggesting that the same editor who had reverted my edit on Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 had added the same content to this article. I had noted the reinsertion of the material in the Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article and, not having noted that the same content already existed in this article, had assumed, mistakenly, that he had placed it here at the same time as the reinsertion. However, the material I removed (which had existed in the article before both Armenia's withdrawal and the reason for the withdrawal were known) was, I think, off-topic at the time (for the reasons I explained: it was a private petition by non-notable individuals who had nothing to do with eurovision 2012). Its re-insertion by Grandmaster (after I had added updated information that gave the actual reason for Armenia's withdrawal) didn't change its off-topic nature and it now distracts readers from the actual announced reason for Armenia's withdrawal and also trivialises that announced reason. I find it hard to believe that those effects are unintended. If they are intended effects then they are not good-faith edits. Meowy 03:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Information regarding this alleged petition from a small number of Armenian's could do with being removed per lack of notability - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also be cautious of WP:CONTROVERSY too. As the majority of the citations supposedly mentioning this petition allegations, are amongst the ones that are slightly dodgy, then it would be best to omit such details until more reliable sources can be found. Wesley☀Mouse 04:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we lack reliable sources on this subject. Are AFP an unreliable source? They wrote:

A group of Armenian pop singers launched a Eurovision boycott campaign last month.



"We refuse to appear in a country that is well known for mass killings and massacres of Armenians, in a country where anti-Armenian sentiments have been elevated to the level of state policy," the 22 singers including three former Armenian Eurovision contestants explained in a statement.

The campaign was launched amid anger at the reported shooting of an Armenian soldier by an Azerbaijani sniper, but it ran into controversy after officials announced that he had actually been killed by a fellow serviceman.

One prominent Armenian blogger described the campaign and the boycott as "a disgrace".

"They could have announced it much earlier, with dignity, with a kind of reasoning that would have gained them respect. Instead, they resorted to stupid propaganda games and outright lies," wrote blogger Mika Artyan.

You can find the same info in New York Times, which is a leading US newspaper. [4] And then the leading Russian news agency RIA Novosti [5]:

In late February a group of more than 20 Armenian singers said they would boycott the song contest in Azerbaijan after the country’s Defense Ministry said that the Armenian soldier, Albert Adibekyan, who served at the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, was killed by an Azerbaijani sniper.



Adibekyan’s death triggered outrage in Armenia, which has been locked in a 24-year-long conflict with Azerbaijan over the Nagorny Karabakh region.

It was later determined that Adibekyan had been killed by a fellow Armenian soldier, Ignat Yengibaryan.

So the reliability of sources is not an issue. As for notability, those who signed the petition included a number of prominent Armenian singers and three former Armenian Eurovision contestants. That is pretty notable. It is quite obvious that the Armenian government was looking for a pretext to withdraw. Initially they planned to use this shooting incident, but it turned into an embarrassment for them. Then they decided to use the speech of Azerbaijani president. Btw, NYT makes connection between Armenian withdrawal and petition:

Armenians had seemed willing to go to Azerbaijan, the home of last year’s winners, until an Armenian soldier was shot to death at the border this year. Armenian performers called for the pullout, and on Wednesday, the Armenian public television station agreed.

I think that wikipedia is free of censorship, and we should not suppress reliable info even if it causes embarrassment for certain governments. I think the reader has a right to know what led to Armenia's withdrawal and information should not be one sided and censored. As for WP:CONTROVERSY, the present wording in the article is even more controversial, and not balanced at all. It only mentions the claims of the Armenian side that there were no security guarantees, etc, while you can read in NYT and other sources that in fact Azerbaijan officially guaranteed security for everyone, and it is known that in the past Armenians often took part in sports events in Azerbaijan and nothing happened to them. Grandmaster 09:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Like a few other editors said above though, the same word-for-word paragraphs have been copy/pasted across three articles now, which is too much. This main ESC 2012 article, would benefit from a brief line regarding the Armenian withdrawal without going OTT with the "fluf" (as one editor called it) - keep to a NPOV. Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 would be better go go into a little more detail, but again not to concentrate too much on the petition side of things. And then finally Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest, would be the ideal place to include as much coverage of this so-called 'petition' issue, as it is more relevant to that article than it is to the previous two. Also don't overkill it with too many sources about the same thing - like really, is there a need for the overkill!? And I personally would only use the NYT source, as they would be more reliable than the others. We had this issue earlier in the year about sources from .am; .az; .ru; they had a tendency to publish reports as if their editorial team was being biased and taking a side. What I find ironic in this though, is why a user from Azerbaijan is thriving from the urge to plaster so much negativity about Armenia? Isn't that alone a bit controversial and biased? Wesley☀Mouse 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That last comment is not a fair one. If you bother to check the articles, I did not include info about the petition controversy in any of the articles. It was already there, in every article. I only updated it with the recent info. I would appreciate if you did some research before making such comments about other users. As for negativity, do you think that negativity about Armenia is bad, and negativity about Azerbaijan is good? I don't find the info that is presently in the article to be particularly positive about Azerbaijan. But it is not a matter of positivity or negativity. It is about objectivity of information. If the info is verifiable, it has a place in the article, whether it is negative or positive. But in general, I agree that this main articles should have only one or two short lines about Armenian withdrawal. Other articles should provide more details. But the short info in this article should also be balanced and in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
If you bothered to read my last comment (which was actually a rhetorical question - hence the question marks at the end), I never said that you added the original details. I merely asked why would anyone from Azerbaijan want to have this impulse to add more than ample enough details about something regarding Armenia? A few short lines would be just as effective, than having a very lengthy in-depth analysis into this petition, which could possibly bore people to death. Keep things simple, but to the point, without going overboard with details. That is why we add source links to what we include, so that a "researcher" has the option to read the actual source for further details if they wish. Don't lunge people into something they may not wish to know the full ins and outs about. Wesley☀Mouse 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand what being from Azerbaijan has to do with this. The info in question was actually added by someone who is not from Azerbaijan [6]. I merely added some clarification about who killed that soldier, but the info was already there, and it was not included by anyone from Azerbaijan. If we do not want to go into details, let's shorten it to one line: On 7 March 2012, Armenia announced that they would not be participating in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest due to security reasons. The details could be provided in other articles. In my opinion, in present form it is not in line with NPOV and presents only one side of the story. Grandmaster 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I don't care if it was Queen Elizabeth II who originally added the information; the thing that is causing alarm bells ringing, is that original details about Armenia (which were perfectly suitable) gets an expansion of biased propaganda analysis (from a resident of Azerbaijan) about a petition that only a few "dodgy" sites have reported about. You can see where I'm coming from with that right? I may not live in either of those nations, nor am I taking sides in a 'war' that basically doesn't concern me; but if this petition existed, I'm sure the EBU would have publicly confirmed the speculations by know, or quash the rumours. As neither action has been done so far by the EBU, then we need to be cautious on alleged rumours especially when it comes to the sensitivity of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. A brief one-line on this ESC 2012 article (which was already there to begin with) is more suitable. A few lines would be ideal on the Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article; and the more in-depth analytic paragraph be written on the Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what "other side of the story" is there? Armenia has announced its withdrawal and released a statement saying why. That statement [7] does not mention any petition, and it says the reason for the withdrawal were concerns about the Azeri president's "Azerbaijan's main enemies are Armenians of the world" speech. Meowy 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt that you read what was there and what exactly I changed. The original wording in this article was: Several singers from the country had previously expressed their concerns following the February 23 death of an Armenian soldier in Azeri sniper attack. This info was inaccurate, because the soldier was not killed by an Azerbaijani sniper. I corrected it to: Several singers from the country had previously expressed their concerns following the February 23 death of an Armenian soldier in an alleged Azeri sniper attack, but it was later determined that he was killed by a fellow Armenian soldier. Anyone can check my edits, which in fact amended only one line: [8] Now you say that "original details about Armenia (which were perfectly suitable) gets an expansion of biased propaganda analysis". Please explain to me how exactly the original inaccurate info was perfectly suitable, and my edit is a "biased propaganda analysis"? Then you say that "only a few "dodgy" sites" reported about the petition, but since when NYT, Agence France-Presse and RIA Novosti are "dodgy sites"? There's no reason to doubt the existence of the petition, since it was reported in major international news outlets. And the info about the petition was already in the article, I only corrected it. But as I said above, I agree that this particular article should include a single line that Armenia withdrew siting security reason, instead of what is there now. Are there any objections to that? Grandmaster 00:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I've already been accused once the past few days of illiteracy, and don't take too kindly to being accused of such action, so I'm politely requesting that you be a little less hasty with such comments in future. Secondly, after reading this, and discussing further with a fellow member of the project, I am stepping back from this conversation. Unless you can discuss things civilly, then I shall continue to participate in a reasonable discussion about content. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I'll have to step back, to avoid being dragged into a personal feud between yourself and Meowy. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 01:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
First off, I did not mean to accuse you of illiteracy, never did that, and I apologize if any of my comments came across as personal, because that was not my intention. I only drew your attention to the actual nature of my edits, since you accused me of inserting "biased propaganda", bringing up my nationality, and I did not really like that. I think we can leave any personal comments aside and discuss the actual content. I really appreciate your efforts on improving this article, and I think we can work together to make it even better. Coming back to the actual content, what do you think of my last proposal? Grandmaster 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I wasn't casting accusations upon yourself by using the term "biased propaganda"; it was the only terminology I could think of based upon an outsiders point of view. As almost everyone is aware, there has been a long-standing awkward situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan; one that even I had to do research on to understand the main gist of it all. From a perspective of an outsider viewing all this, I found it very... erm... bizarre... for better choice of words, that from out of the blue a large chunk of information about Armenia's withdrawal suddenly became expanded with a one-sided details of some petition, that even I hadn't heard of until you provided the website reports. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to come across as racist either when I mentioned your nationality, as that isn't my nature whatsoever; but after knowing the sensitivity between Armenia-Azerbaijan's awkward relationship, then naturally it would start to trigger warning signals as to why someone from Azerbaijan would want to go into so much depth about an Armenian petition that very few people knew about. As you can see from that perspective it didn't strike as weird on a few levels. So far, the EBU and ARMTV have announced a specific reason for Armenia's withdrawal, which is different to the one that the other sources that you mention have said; so it would probably be best to stick to the details of EBU for the time being; and not try getting involved in other alleged reasons. Wesley☀Mouse 01:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I have nothing to do with inclusion or expansion of info about the petition, as I said above, it was there, and I only added a short clarification about who caused the death of the soldier. But let's leave alone who was right and who was wrong. EBU has officially only this to say: [9] They are truly disappointed with the decision to withdraw. Grandmaster 02:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps wording a short sentence along the lines of "on 7 March 2012, the EBU announced that Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) had unfortunately decided to withdraw from participation. This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU. There have been several allegations regarding the reasoning behind the sudden withdrawal, but nothing specific from either the EBU or ARMTV that clarifies the exact nature of the decision."'? Something like that is keeping to the main facts, without going overboard with allegations, which nobody is 100% certain of their authenticity. Wesley☀Mouse 02:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It is good, but ARMTV provided their reasoning siting security reasons. Maybe a wording like this would be better: On 7 March 2012, Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) announced that they would not be participating in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest due to security reasons. The Contest Executive Supervisor Jon Ola Sand stated that EBU was "truly disappointed" and that "despite the efforts of the EBU and the Host Broadcaster to ensure a smooth participation for the Armenian delegation in this year's Contest, circumstances beyond our control lead to this unfortunate decision." Grandmaster 09:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, are we allowed to quote Jon Ola Sand's own words into the same paragraph? Wouldn't that be on the cusp of copyvio? Also we'd need to reflink the statement from ARMTV's website to 'back-up' this security reasons announcement. If there is, then you're recent wording would be suitable, as long as we're allowed to quote Sand's comments. If there isn't any, then we're a little snookered I'm afraid; and therefore would advisably be better to go with the wording I suggested. Wesley☀Mouse 10:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting is not a copyright violation, as long as we properly attribute the quote to its source. In this case we do so. You can see that it is done almost in every article here. As for ARMTV, the link is already there. We can include your version too, but without the last sentence, because we cannot claim that nothing specific has been stated. Grandmaster 10:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm an amalgamation of both sentences sounds plausible. How about this combined version then? "On 7 March 2012, Jon Ola Sand, Contest Executive Supervisor of the EBU announced that Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) had unfortunately decided to withdraw from participation. This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU. Shortly after ARMTV published an announcement stating security reasons was one of the reasons behind their sudden decision." Wesley☀Mouse 11:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That's good, with minor correction: "On 7 March 2012, Jon Ola Sand, Contest Executive Supervisor of the EBU announced that Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) had unfortunately decided to withdraw from participation. This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU. Shortly after ARMTV published an announcement stating security as the reason behind their sudden decision." I think we should also mention that EBU was disappointed with this. Grandmaster 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the above proposed for this article? I thought it was decided that all that was needed was a sentence? As explained earlier, it was incorrect to say that "nothing specific from either the EBU or ARMTV that clarifies the exact nature of the decision". ARMTV gave a specific reason for the decision: the abusive speech by the Azeri president where he stated that all Armenians everywhere were enemies of Azerbaijan. Why mention "Jon Ola Sand"? Why say he is "Contest Executive Supervisor of the EBU"? Surely neither fact is important. Who says the withdrawal is "unfortunate"? "This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU" - if this it is a quote, it needs quotations. if it is an opinion, the circumstances need to be detailed or the opinion removed. "Shortly after" sounds weasel. Did you expect ARMTV to have announced it was withdrawing before first telling the EBU it was going to withdraw? "The EBU was disappointed with this" - bwaah, poor EBU, "disappointed" that singers didn't want to enter a country whose president calls them enemies of the nation! "EBU was disappointed with this" is just weasel-wording to imply that Armenia was acting unreasonably or for trivial reasons. Meowy 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Meowy, I have mentioned to GrandMaster once, and I shall repeat the same to yourself... remain civil please. I have already noted a long-standing dispute between the pair of you; don't be dragging me into thank you. If you read the conversation properly, you may have noticed that both Grandmaster and myself have already discounted using the sentence "nothing specific from either the EBU or ARMTV that clarifies the exact nature of the decision". You ask why we should mention Jon Ola Sand; is there a reason why we shouldn't? Afterall it was he who announced the withdrawal in an EBU press release. Also if we're to mention an employee within the EBU, it is just as worthy to mention his position of "Contest Executive Supervisor" within the company. You ask who said the withdrawal is "unfortunate" - Mr Sand is the person who mentioned it in the EBU press release, along with the other comments "This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU". The phrase "Shortly after" isn't weasel-worded whatsoever; naturally ARMTV informed the EBU first of their decision, but it was the EBU that made the press release first without going into too much detail on the reasons. Shortly after ARMTV released a press release, explaining their reason in a little more detail. Both are notable facts, and in chronological order. As neither you nor Grandmaster can agree on what should and shouldn't be included, then it would be better to stick to NPOV and word things based off the press released by the EBU and ARMTV. Wesley☀Mouse 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that sticking to what ARMTV and the EBU say is best. I don't have any objection to mentioning the names of people, though I don't think it is essential, unless we directly use quotes of what individuals say. I don't think the inclusion of the word "unfortunately" is necessary either, and probably should only be in a quote, and as currently written it isn't entirely clear that this is the opinion of the EBU rather than than that of the article writer. Other than that, I have no pressing objections to what is proposed. CT Cooper · talk 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You sre asking why such-and-such unimportant information should NOT be included? Wasn't a major point of this discussion that the text was being overloaded with trivial or off-topic things? Wasn't brevity to be an aim? "Jon Ola Sand" is unimportant trivia - so let's get rid of it. "Contest Executive Supervisor" is unimportant trivia - so let's get rid of it. There is also no reason to include the pointless "shortly after" words: obviously the later statement would have had to have been preceeded by the earlier, one announces the withdrawal, the other explains the withdrawal. Meowy 20:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, in response to the first half of your comment Meowy, the main point of this discussion was raised by yourself, in which you asked if there was a need to mention the petition allegation. A lengthy discussion has taken place above, and GrandMaster finally agreed that the petition shouldn't be mentioned and that we need to stick to the main facts that the EBU and ARMTV have published. Upon that decision, a further discussion took place to determine how we should rephrase the paragraph, in order to avoid mentioning the petition (as per your request). Several discussions took place, and it was established that the line ""nothing specific from either the EBU or ARMTV that clarifies the exact nature of the decision" isn't necessary. Secondly the option wasn't set in stone to include Jon Ola Sand's name and position within the EBU, those details where only a suggestion. However, you may have failed to notice that and are assuming those details are going to be added regardless. If you would be so kind as to glance at the article, you will notice that nothing has been revised yet, as there is still a consensus building exercise in progress. So please, once again, calm down, and read carefully what others have written before jumping in head first and avoid the possibilities of looking red-faced in embarrassment of false statements. Wesley☀Mouse 20:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what has been agreed, or even what article we are talking about anymore. "Nothing specific from either the EBU or ARMTV that clarifies the exact nature of the decision" was rejected because it was incorrect, not because it was unnecessary. This article, in the participating countries section, has the words "On 7 March 2012 Armenia announced that it would also be withdrawing from the contest, citing security concerns". That seems sufficient. In the "other countries" section we have "On 7 March 2012, Armenia announced that they would not be participating in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest due to security reasons. ARMTV said that it was no longer confident that the Azerbaijani authorities would carry out their promise to guarantee the security of the Armenian delegation after Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, in a speech given on 28 February 2012,[43] had stated that Azerbaijan's "main enemies are Armenians of the world". They could not send participants to a country where they "will be greeted as an enemy", ARMTV explained.[44] However they do plan to participate in future contests hosted by other countries instead". That seems a bit long - the last two sentences could go, I think. Now, where is this proposed "On 7 March 2012, Jon Ola Sand, Contest Executive Supervisor of the EBU announced that Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) had unfortunately decided to withdraw from participation. This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU. Shortly after ARMTV published an announcement stating security as the reason behind their sudden decision." to go? Meowy 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The proposed one that you've quoted hasn't been finalised yet. However, CT Cooper said it would be better "sticking to what ARMTV and the EBU say", and that he doesn't "have any objection to mentioning the names of people", though he doesn't think it is essential, unless we directly use quotes of what individuals say. Seeing as the pending suggestion has already been tweaked to remove the quotations, then we no longer need to mention Mr Sand. So it may now read as "On 7 March 2012, the EBU announced that Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) had decided to withdraw from participation. This was due to circumstances beyond the control of the EBU. In a further statement released by ARMTV, it was announced that security issues was the reason behind the sudden withdrawal." Wesley☀Mouse 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why that is better than the current "On 7 March 2012, Armenia announced that they would not be participating in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest due to security reasons. ARMTV said that it was no longer confident that the Azerbaijani authorities would carry out their promise to guarantee the security of the Armenian delegation after Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, in a speech given on 28 February 2012, had stated that Azerbaijan's "main enemies are Armenians of the world". We can give the EBU and ARMTV sources as references. Meowy 21:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The reworded version is sticking to a neutral point of view in its wording, whilst the current one is sounding very one-sided, which goes against NPOV. Wesley☀Mouse 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
What "other side of the story" is there? Meowy 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
On 7 March 2012, the EBU announced that Armenia had decided to withdraw from participating in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest. In a seperate announcement Armenian Public Television (ARMTV) explained that it was no longer confident that the Azerbaijani authorities would carry out their promise to guarantee the security of the Armenian delegation after the President of Azerbaijan, in a speech given on 28 February 2012, had stated that Azerbaijan's "main enemies are Armenians of the world". Meowy 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Aarrgghhh I hate edit conflicts - give people chance to reply first will ya! The "other side of the story" is the side that you are stating needs to remain in the paragraph, about the alleged statement that Ilham Aliyev has said. As neither the EBU nor ARMTV have mentioned this as a fact, then we don't know if Mr Ilham Aliyev has' actually said it or not. The only way we would know if his statement is factual, is if one of us was present in the room at the time, and unfortunately I doubt any of us where. Therefore, as we can rely on the details published by the EBU and ARMTV, then it by far safer to mention those facts, than to include speculative details. Wesley☀Mouse 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement isn't alleged - it is quoted in the ARMTV statement and it is on the website of the president of Azerbaijan: http://en.president.az/articles/4423 Meowy 21:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What part of keep to NPOV are you struggling to grasp Meowy? A few editors have all stated it is best to stick to what EBU and ARMTV have published, and that is what we've done in the rewording that everyone else appears to be satisfied with, apart from yourself. A consensus to avoid using the alleged details is over-weighing your personal choice to include them, unfortunately. Wesley☀Mouse 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There are no "alleged details" here - the ARMTV statement gives a specific reason for Armenia's withdrawal, the speech by the President of Azerbaijan: "with regret we announce that the Armenian Public TV Company cannot send a delegation for participation in “Eurovision” to the capital of Azerbaijan Baku in May 2012. Even though Azerbaijani authorities promised to guarantee security for all participating countries, days ago the president of Azerbaijan “made an exception” for one of those countries, by announcing that Azerbaijan’s primary enemies are Armenians throughout the world." Meowy 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but you seriously need to read things carefully Meowy. I have read the article published by the president of Azerbaijan, and the only reference to Armenia is "The number of our friends is increasing. But there will always be those who don’t like us. But the fact that they are in our way can’t make us abandon the chosen path." No where in that or any other part of the statement does he mention that all nations are guaranteed safety with exception to Armenia. So we cannot say that is the reason sorry! Wesley☀Mouse 22:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to cite the accusation against the Azerbaijani side that ARMTV made to justify its withdrawal, then for the sake of objectivity and NPOV we need to quote what the Azerbaijani side has to say to this. Otherwise it would not be a neutral wording, representing the opinion of one side only. I think we should include the above discussed wording which CT Cooper also supported. Let's keep it brief, the details can be found in the other 2 articles. Grandmaster 22:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I've already included the refractored wording into this article and used the EBU sources. If we're to go deeper into the ins and outs of reasons, then those details should be included at Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest only. Wesley☀Mouse 23:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Grandmaster, has the Azerbaijani "side" said anything at all about this? Meowy 00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, quoted here, at Time magazine blog: [10]

Following Armenia’s March 7 withdrawal, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which runs Eurovision, described the move as an “unfortunate decision.” And Azeri politicians accused Armenia of a propaganda war. Ali Ahmedov, a senior member of Azerbaijan’s governing party, told reporters that Armenia had drummed up an excuse to withdraw—and that they would likely regret it. As he said: “The Armenian refusal to take part in such a respected contest will cause even further damage to the already damaged image of Armenia.”

Also here: [11], interview of Ismayil Omarov, General Director of Public Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 00:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Eurovision, "a respected contest". I think I prefer the "cultural Chernobyl" description. There is probably content in the Time Magazine source that could be used in the Armenia-Azerbaijan eurovision article. The Azeri source is pure propaganda - I wonder if Omarov gets sent to the gulag for contradicting the Great Leader, who quite clearly said "Armenians of the world" and not "the government of Armenia and certain individuals". Meowy 01:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion. From the Wikipedia point of view, Omarov's opinion is as good for inclusion as the ARMTV opinion is. But in my personal opinion, Mr. Omarov is absolutely right. ARMTV was looking for a pretext, and they found it. First it was the shooting incident, but as AFP mentioned, it turned into an embarrassment when it was revealed that the Armenian soldier was shot by a fellow Armenian soldier. Btw, you can read in the Armenian blogs that the petition was prepared in advance by ARMTV and they got 22 singers to sign it. When it did not work, they decided to use something else. If it had not been the speech of president, they would have found another reason, but they were not going to take part from the very beginning. It is obvious from the fact that they did not have any selection process for their representative, like they did for previous years. If they had serious intentions, why there was no selection? But all of the above are just your and mine personal opinions. What matters here is the fact that in accordance with NPOV we need to present what the Armenian side says, what Azerbaijani side says, and what EBU says. The reader can make his own judgement. Grandmaster 09:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Wesley, isn't this the passage Meowy is referring to:

Our political influence and economic power are growing. This is seen by those who like us and those who don’t. There are quite a lot of those who rejoice in our successes. But there are forces that don’t like us, our detractors. They can be divided into several groups. First, our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control. The politicians who don’t wish to see the truth and are engaged in denigrating Azerbaijan in different parts of the world. Members of some parliaments, certain political figures, etc. who live on the money of the Armenian lobby. We know them all. There is no need to name them.

Found here, a little more than midway at the bottom.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps Wesley needs to act on his own advice and read things carefully. Meowy 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Uh, Marshall, I had read that part too, as shown in my statement

No where in that or any other part of the statement does he mention that all nations are guaranteed safety with exception to Armenia

Meowy, is trying to say that in the statement by the President of Azerbaijan is a paragraph that explicitly states Armenia's security at the Eurovision isn't guaranteed. As there is nothing explicitly mentioning Armenia's Eurovision participation, then we cannot publish "false facts" based on personal assumptions. Wesley☀Mouse 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, Wesley, act on your own advice and read things carefully. Making statements like "false facts" is hardly assuming good faith. I was not "saying" anything. I was quoting the content of the ARMTV statement, the very same statement that, along with the EBU one, you had said earlier should be used as the basis to establish what the content should be. The ARMTV statement explicitely mentions that the Azerbaijani presidents statement was the reason for the withdrawal. How can you claim otherwise? Meowy 23:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Before you start to question my misspecification of good faith, perhaps look at the way you've worded things in a personal manner towards myself first - that is more bad faith, than my analysis of a statement published on the internet. I have asked you several times to refrain from personally directing things in a derogatory fashion. You said that in the statement published on the President of Azerbaijan's website is a paragraph that explicitly states Armenia safety is at risk during Eurovision. Although the president stated Armenians wouldn't be safe, he didn't say that it would also be the case for Eurovision did he? No! His actual wordings can be open to interpretation, but we are not in the right to assume what may be the real meaning behind is comments. We can only go off what is printed in black and white. Wesley☀Mouse 23:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you completely unwilling to read cited sources or assume MY good faith? The ARMTV statement is the one giving the opinion that Armenians would not be safe during Eurovision after what the President of Azerbaijan said. I gave you a word-for-word quote from that statement and you then accuse me of inserting false facts. Meowy 23:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No shouting please Meowy. Please decapitalize the word 'my', as capitalized words (unless they are abbreviations) are considered to be bad faith shouting. Wesley☀Mouse 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And since when did I accuse you of inserting false facts? A comment such as "As there is nothing explicitly mentioning Armenia's Eurovision participation, then we cannot publish "false facts" based on personal assumptions" which I wrote hasn't mentioned any user in an accusation manner. I said we, you know, as in the majestic plural "royal we". The current paragraph covers the security issue adequately enough, without going into possible speculations of how ARMTV may have interpreted a comment made by Azerbaijan' President. Wesley☀Mouse 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Do you purposefully leave out the earlier part of your quote? The bit that claimed "Meowy is trying to say that in the statement by the President of Azerbaijan is a paragraph that explicitly states Armenia's security at the Eurovision isn't guaranteed. As there is nothing explicitly mentioning Armenia's Eurovision participation, then we cannot publish "false facts" based on personal assumptions". I said no such thing: there were no "false facts based on personal assumptions" I was quoting directly from the ARMTV announcement. Please, would you now re-read that announcement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowy (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes on 10 March 2012

Serbia's song has been updated, and a page made about it. The same with Romania, but the link of Mandinga directs to an ethnic group. We need an article about the Romanian group... But I'm leaving for now, so it's all up to you guys. And Sweden, that was ready from the start Davidcolombia96eng (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mandinga now goes to Mandinga (group), thanks:) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition of Lăutar needs edited

Could someone please change Lăutar's translation to 'Traditional musician'. A Lăutar doesn't specficially play the Violin it's not defined by a certain instrument, but I understand where the idea of one being a "Violinist" came from as they are most common to play the violin or other string-based instruments. Pasha's song refers to the trumpet to a far greater degree than any violin. Here's a link to support my reason: http://dexonline.ro/definitie/lăutar Dexonline.ro is the most widely used dictionary to translate Romanian-English. They refer to Lăutar meaning a Folk Musician, so please feel free to use either terms, just not Violinist, as it's unaccurate, Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BranMcCann (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading the website you've attached, it provided several definitions of Lăutar. The first reads "folk musician who plays a stringed instrument or, any instrument, usually a folk band, fiddler.". The other 4 definitions beneath it all refer to a fiddler. The general definition of a fiddler is a person who plays a violin, a violinist. Wesley☀Mouse 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, Google translation gives three options for Lăutar - Fiddler; Musician; or Roma Musician. Wesley☀Mouse 22:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Boycott request from Amnesty

Should we mention that Amnesty and other organisations are asking for a boycott of the Eurovision 2012?. Its legitimate criticism from this organisations.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

[12],[13].--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Information published in both of those websites regarding Human Rights Watch is already included in the article. Wesley☀Mouse 22:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Not the latest boycott request from Amnesty which has recieved worldwide attention today.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in the above links that Amnesty called for the boycott of the event. They only mention calls for boycott from some unnamed "campaigners in Holland, France and Ireland". Grandmaster 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say then based on it being "campaigners", that we wait a while, as the running order draw takes place in a few more days, and I'm sure all our answers as to whether Iceland, Ireland, France, and Netherlands are planning to withdraw. Wesley☀Mouse 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that any of those countries are going to withdraw, and campaigners appear to be not notable, because the sources did not even mention who they were. So I agree, it is better to wait until more details are available. Grandmaster 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom Song

It says that the date that the song will be announced is on 19 March, however isn't this too late to submit? I thought all songs had to be in by 18 March. --92.10.143.118 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The 18 March date is simply the final date for the song to be handed over to the EBU. It seems announcing the song is not the same. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Then surely the title will be here (which is being used as a source for the participants) on 18 March? Spa-Franks (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, the EBU may not though and wait for the BBC. Just read the bottom which says "Disclaimer: All entered data here is unofficial till the moment the entries are handed in to the European Broadcasting Union in March." -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
From reading this ESCToday article (which reads as follows) "Humperdinck's song will be revealed just on time with the head of delegations meeting in Baku", one can cunningly decipher from that sentence alone that the submission date is March 19. Wesley☀Mouse 22:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Valentina Monetta for San Marino

I'm just posting this for the update on Artists in the contest.

Source - http://escxtra.com/2012/03/valentina-monetta-picked-for-baku/

La Europa (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's been some controversy on this one; The EBU believe that a song called 'Facebook uh oh oh' might breach EBU rules.
Source - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=49493&_t=ebu_san_marino_song_lyrics_in_breach_of_rules
Indisciplined (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This has already been accounted for, the song lyrics and name were disqualified for using a commercial term [Facebook] (rule 1.2.2 (g))[14] San Marino will present their revised entry today [22 March].[15] -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Portugal's song translation to english

I'd like to suggest that the translation to english of the portuguese song "Vida Minha" to be "Life Of Mine".

"Vida Minha" has a poetry sense because normally in portuguese we say minha vida which means my life, although when we put it like vida minha we are giving it a poetry flavour and in english the best option for translation is really Life Of Mine.

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroSedan (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Portugal's song translation to english

I'd like to suggest that the translation to english of the portuguese song "Vida Minha" to be "Life Of Mine".

"Vida Minha" has a poetry sense because normally in portuguese we say minha vida which means my life, although when we put it like vida minha we are giving it a poetry flavour and in english the best option for translation is really Life Of Mine.

Thank you in advance

P.S. - Sorry for the double-post... didn't mean it :/

PedroSedan (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. As a speaker of other Romance languages albeit not Portuguese, they have different structures to simply say "my life", so "life of mine" would indeed be a better translation. I think you can go ahead and change it. Welshleprechaun 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. In Spanish, that is not Portuguese but shares most of its structure and lots of similarities, "my life" would simply be said "mi vida", and "vida mía" (notice the similarity) has a romantic/poetic subtext that would be better expressed with "life of mine". Not A Superhero (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Eurovision Official Tweet regarding Azerbaijan

This suggests to me that it will be revealed some time today, as there isn't a similar one for the UK. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Prophetic words indeed! Spa-Franks (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Very cunning of the BBC to leave their song announcement until last. Do you think the BBC have plotted this all along? They wait for the other 41 countries to showcase their entries, and then they bring out the "spectacular" entry. Wesley☀Mouse 03:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't mention the BBC! Please! I'm in an argument over my other love, Formula One, with the billpayer (Sky or BBC). Spa-Franks (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Do I have to get my WP:NOT#FORUM link out? :D Also '"spectacular" entry' doubt it. I'm also in mourning Spa:( -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sabina Babayeva to sing 'When The Music Dies'

This is her official song for Azerbaijan in Eurovision 2012.

Reference - http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=49333&_t=sabina_babayeva_to_sing_when_the_music_dies_in_baku

2.222.206.242 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Already done! Song details where added to the article a few hours ago. Wesley☀Mouse 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Iceland song language revised

ESCToday have announced that Iceland's entry Mundu eftir mér has been revised into a new English version "Never Forget", to be performed in Baku. I've updated the article accordingly; however, I've kept the direct link as Mundu eftir mér, but showing the new English title for now; until someone either recreates a new article or redirects the original one. Wesley☀Mouse 13:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The original article should have been moved to the English title. Now there are two articles about the same song. *hiss* I'm PRODing the first one. – Kosm1fent 19:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Just PRODed the original article and mentioned the old title in the body of the new article. – Kosm1fent 19:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You've PROD'ed the wrong article, it's worth PROD'ing the English version, since the Icelandic version contains the page History, and then moving the article. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't really. I've moved the charts section to the new article. Apart from that, there was nothing really worth saving in the old article. Anyways, I've just realised that I could have just redirected the old to the new version (why am I so thick?) – Kosm1fent 19:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. Well, if history matters so much, then do what you want. – Kosm1fent 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Right current situation; "Never Forget (Gréta Salóme & Jónsi song)" redirects to "Mundu eftir mér". With Never Forget having {{db-move}} (I knew that template was somewhere). -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to sound pedantic Kosmo, but I never created the "Never Forget (Gréta Salóme & Jónsi song)" article. I did state in my original post above, that I was leaving that up to whoever - as I knew partially that a redirect would be ideal, but wasn't too sure how to go about redirects. Thus leaving that side of things to someone with more experience. I do believe that U.Steele (talk · contribs) created the new English article a few moments after I started this thread. Wesley☀Mouse 22:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Language revisions

I've changed the language of the Georgian entry, since it now includes Georgian. That can be verified listening to the song itself. But I notice, this problem also happens with other songs. If anyone wants to help, he/she is welcome. By the way, I don't know what to put on Montenegro since the song includes this phrases in German/Montenegrin: "Blaue Grotte Ausflug do Žanjica; Heute habe obotnica"... Please give some advice Davidcolombia96eng (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no German phrases in this song. That is complete nonsense! Pintiboy (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the lyrics from Diggiloo.net (which is the source the project is using for song language details) there are German phrases in the 5th verse of the Montenegrin song. Wesley☀Mouse 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wildcard?

On ESCToday it has got the running order for the two semifinals. Two entrys have wild card next to it, what does this mean?--92.10.143.118 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably means that the wildcard, get to chose their positions rather than through the random draw. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
That's right. The first country to be drawn in each section was able to pick their position as a 'wildcard' doktorb wordsdeeds 15:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Commentator

The Norwegian commentator will be Olav Viksmo-Slettan. He's returning for the thrid time. He confirmed this in a NRK-chatroom during Melodi Grand Prix... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.245.90 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable source confirming this? – Kosm1fent 14:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Eva Frantz & Johan Lindroos will be commentating for Finland (in swedish) for Yle TV2
http://svenska.yle.fi/eurovision/index.php/5288_esc_bidragen_bedoms_pa_yle_fem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harulf (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Added, but please place new comments to the bottom of this page. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

San Marino Song

What do people want to do? Move "Facebook Uh, Oh, Oh" to "The Social Network Song"? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be moved to "The Social Network Song (Oh Oh-Uh-Oh Oh)"? [16] [17] — Andreyyshore (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say yes, it should be moved really. Wesley☀Mouse 22:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Eurovision.tv is using "The Social Network Song (Oh Oh – Uh - Oh Oh), with spaces and the en-dash and hyphen. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
They probably didn't pay much attention to it. Hopefully, the iTunes title will clear that up when the single is released. – Andreyyshore (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's how Amazon.com lists it: [18] – Andreyyshore (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but Amazon.co.uk has [19] this, but the album as this.-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The BBC are now using The Social Network Song (oh oh -- uh - oh oh). I think that because all major sources have the "oh"s and "uh"s on the end, I think it should be moved. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Even though the BBC have it listed one way, I'd say how Eurovision.tv would be the correct way to label it. Only because, the BBC is a broadcaster, while EBU are the "governing body" of the contest. Wesley☀Mouse 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why MayaSar?

In her official website and the Eurovision website, and even on her preview clip, her name is spelled Maya Sar, not MayaSar. LPG4042 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia

The Macedonian song has been changed to Crno E Belo. [20] --Ahmetyal 14:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This had been discussed once before. Please refer to archived thread Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012/Archive_4#Macedonian_song. - Wesley☀Mouse 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo

As published on ESCToday the EBU have confirmed that Kosovo is ineligible to take part in Eurovision. That finally sheds light and clears up the Kosovo debate after so many years of speculations. Wesley☀Mouse 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

yeah for now atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone expect Kosovo to join the EBU before gaining recognition by the UN? Seriously, I wonder where this debate came from... – Kosm1fent 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It ought to be mentioned at the end of the Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest re-direct, as the current content goes on about the UN when it was actually entry in the ITU that was important. It is rather interesting that Kosovo can participate in Eurovision Young Dancers, but not the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · talk 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That's an event featuring significantly less public (and media) attention than the Eurovision Song Contest, so I kind of understand EBU's point. – Kosm1fent 20:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the "debate" sparked off Kosmo, after it was known that the EBU had created Kosovo's TV station, R1K. That brought much debate over the years as to whether the fact that the EBU franchised the broadcaster would technically mean they had "backdoor membership". Also like Cooper pointed out, Kosovo had also participated in EYD, and thus fans expected ESC presence at some stage too. But now that the EBU have finally decided to release details about it, assists us as an editorial team to be able to put to bed a long-running debate about Kosovo's future in the Eurovision - which is why I felt it best to highlight this on here too in case others weren't aware about it. Wesley☀Mouse 21:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad the EBU have come out and settled this for the time being, as it does make things easier for us. Thanks for letting us know Wes. CT Cooper · talk 22:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

picture of the stage

http://i.imgur.com/QBSvC.jpg please add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality, and although I note one appeared for some time last year, I am not convinced a picture of the stage uploaded as non-free passes the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. CT Cooper · talk 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I highly doupt it passes criterion #8 for non-free content. – Kosm1fent 18:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic in the Danish song

Is it worth mentioning that Should've Known Better contain one word in Arabic? "inshallah" Here [21] --Ahmetyal 13:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Only as a footnote. – Kosm1fent 18:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Australian Commentators and program info

According to http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/02/programmers-wrap-2012-sbs.html the Australian commentators will again be Julia Zemiro and Sam Pang, can this be updated on the page? 49.188.185.23 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added this information, with an updated reference http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/05/airdate-eurovision-song-contest-2012.html Whats new? (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Noises coming from BBC Eurovision Twitter

They say that "Love Will Set You Free" will be released on 6 May, but this is not on the Love Will Set You Free article. Is an official twitter account a reliable source? Spa-Franks (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it should pass WP:TWITTER. – Kosm1fent 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it is already on sale. According to BBC's Facebook page, "The Hump's single" is currently at #1 on Amazon charts. Wesley☀Mouse 13:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's probably number one in the pre-orders, but it has not been released yet, Amazon and HMV give 7 May. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

English versions of songs

Bosnia & Herzegovina have released an English version of Korake ti znam but the title is called "The Steps I know", rather than the English translation of "I know your steps". Which do we use? Spa-Franks (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Music of Macedonia

Music of Macedonia "Crno I Belo" has a part in English. You can prove here: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/year/participant-profile/?song=27013 in lyrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.21.56 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Added. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
no Objection! Surely the ultimate source is to listen to the song here? There's about as much English in that song as my giant inflatable television - it doesn't exist. Spa-Franks (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
So it does, looks like the lyrics on eurovision.tv seem to suggest some English verses yet the video does not. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just because there is a version of the song with no English lyrics doesn't mean that is the version that will be performed in the ESC. Quite likely the version that is on eurovision.tv is the actual contest version. 82.197.2.14 (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Patience is a virtue. That would be something we can change once we now more. But seeing as there isn't enough reliable sources to answer this question either way, then we are best to wait. Its only a couple of weeks away, so what harm is that wait going to do? Wesley☀Mouse 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

norway might have to withdraw

the terror trial might prevent norway from airing the semi finals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Several people have mentioned this in the past. And unless some reliable sources state a withdrawal, then we are not to speculate a decision. I highly doubt that Norway would withdraw at this stage of the contest, especially when A) they have spent money on a national final; B) it would cost them more in penalty fees if they did withdraw; and C) Norway has several other TV channels which may screen the semifinals and/or may screen the Breivik trial instead. Wesley☀Mouse 15:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012


92.86.181.95 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if some clues as to the type of edit that was being requested. We may be good, but not mind-readers. Wesley☀Mouse 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Hosts: Eldar, Nargiz and Layla.

I noticed this hasn't been mentioned on this page yet, but the hosts for this year's contest have been announced: Eldar, Nargiz and Leyla. Source: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=51763&_t=eldar_nargiz_leyla_to_host_eurovision_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc95 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Help

Help me save the Nargiz Berk-Petersen she will co-host the Eurovision 2012 and the article could be deleted within days, because some user's don't agree with me about the instant notability of hosting a major event such as this. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it now for you. It could be something as easy as needing one source just to save it. Wesley☀Mouse 16:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to find some other show she might have done or similar. But not much information can be find I think. But if you find any then it's great.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
As the user who put it up for deletion in the first place is from Canada I guess the user isnt fully aware of the Eurovision and the major event that it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm expanding the article as we speak, to give it more notability. I could see immediately from the lead that the reasons for deletion nomination were valid, as nothing notable was included. However, that is about to change, as I have found a few things to include and expand the article to a reasonable standard of notability. Wesley☀Mouse 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The user who put the article up for deletion is me, with the intention of redirecting it to the main event article per WP:BIO1E. The sole claim of notability for the presenter is being a co-host for the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 – not a big enough role to merit a place in Wikipedia. If you want to object to the deletion, remove the PROD tag from the article, btw.
(edit conflict) With Wesley's expansion, the subject claim of notability should become valid. It just isn't right now. – Kosm1fent 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded the article to include more details that are accessible from reliable sources. I noticed Kosmo had removed the PROD, but an edit conflict caused it to return - I have since re-removed it. If anyone else can find more reliable sources to fill in gaps such as when and where Nargiz was born etc, then that would be perfect. I'll add it ot my watchlist and to-do list too. Wesley☀Mouse 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does need references for the recently-added parts. – Kosm1fent 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The new bits are basically what the EBU has said, but I've reworded their description to avoid copyvio. The other thing is image for Nargiz. Several websites including the EBU, ESCToday, ESCDaily, ESCKaz, Oikotimes, and a few .az sites are all using the same image of Nargiz, which I would assume means it is permitted for Wiki to also use, especially when none of the aforementioned sites have the images copyrighted. Wesley☀Mouse 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the image, it would probably fail criterion #1 of the non-free image policy. – Kosm1fent 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think such an upload would fail WP:NFCC#1. I believe the general consensus is that, barring exceptional cases, images of people should only be uploaded as non-free content if there are no free equivalents known to exist and the person depicted is deceased. CT Cooper · talk 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Armenia fined

Does this deserve a mention in this particular article: [22] [23]? Grandmaster 16:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes a small mention in the article is appropriate I think. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting find. The fact that Nyberg-Frankenhauzer as also stated that in the event AMPTV ignores the conditions given by the broadcasting union, the country could lose the right to participate in further editions of the contest; may be worth keeping an extra eye on, as that loss of right to participate in future contests could also impact Armenia's JESC participation too, of which they are listed as confirmed for JESC 2012. Wesley☀Mouse 17:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
That is not mentioned in any source. – Kosm1fent 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Its mentioned in both sources that Grandmaster provided above. If the EBU have said Armenia will lose their right to participate in future contest, if they fail to comply to the conditions set, then that may impact both ESC and JESC. Well worth keeping a close eye on it. Wesley☀Mouse 17:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I see no mention about the junior contest anywhere... – Kosm1fent 17:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kosmo, are you misreading my comment? The second paragraph of this source gives details on the conditions, and the 3rd paragraph details the penalties if Armenia fail to abide with the conditions. If the EBU were to revoke Armenia's right to participate in ESC, then that could impact JESC too - very logical seeing as the EBU govern both contests. Wesley☀Mouse 17:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I never said it "would" impact, the key word in my comment is I said "could" impact. Which means we'd need to keep an eye on how this develops between the EBU and AMPTV. In case the EBU get picky and stop them taking part in both contest rather than banning them from one. Wesley☀Mouse 17:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't doupt about the consequenses the country may face in the senior contest, but what you say about the junior one is way speculative. However, I understand your point and I'd certainly expect a statement about Armenia's intentions for JESC in the following months (since the date for a NF was not announced). – Kosm1fent 17:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Kosmo, please strikeout the "bollocks" remark, it comes across as a personal attack. I haven't been speculative in any way; logic would prevail over speculation on this matter; and I did stress that point several times in saying we'd need to monitor this news. If the EBU ban Armenia from ESC, then the EBU could also look into banning them from JESC. We already know the EBU govern both contests, and if they use the phrase "the country could lose the right to participate in further editions of the contest", may also imply both editions, and not just the one. Look at when Lebanon withdrawn; the EBU banned them from taking part in any EBU-governed contest, including ESC and JESC. The same could happen with Armenia. Wesley☀Mouse 17:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Logic is subjective. Sources prevail over logic. As I said, I understand what you mean (athough I disagree with your logic), but this discussion is doomed to stay in a philosophical ground unless reliable sources connecting Armenia's fine with possible JESC consequences are found. (Also btw, "bollocks" did not go towards you, but rather towards the Wiki software which is not able to merge two posts submitted in the same time. Ugh.) – Kosm1fent 17:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It would still be polite and in good faith to strikeout the bollocks comment, per user request. Also are you feeling OK today? You're not normally so abrupt in dissing self-opinionated of my logic in previous discussions we had together. In this one you appear to be foot stomping and I do find some of the tone used a little disturbing. Going off the EBU's previous pattern of history in dealing with late withdrawals and banning sanctions, it would be reasonable to look at this one in a similar way, albeit that the EBU have yet to comment further on how they intend to ban Armenia in the event they do fail to comply with the conditions. Looking on that previous history, is being "logic" to any person viewing things on that perspective. Wesley☀Mouse 17:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So "disagreeing" with you means "dissing" now. Okay... I am fine by the way, thanks for asking. – Kosm1fent 17:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Dissing meant in a figurative speech, and in common courtesy, I shall strikeout some of those comments. The only reason I asked if you're OK, is because your personal mannerisms are normally chatty, out-going, lively, warm-hearted person. But today, that pattern appears to have reversed slightly. When I get use to mannerisms of one person, and those mannerisms suddenly change, then I do ponder if that person is OK or if something is bothering them so much, that they need a friend's shoulder to cry on, or a good listening ear to speak to. Wesley☀Mouse 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the actual source of the news (in Russian): [24] It is the interview of Annika Nyberg Frankenhaeuser to the Russian state news agency. It also says that the EBU did not disclose the amount of the fine, it just stated that the fine would be equal to the Armenia's participation fee plus 50%. Grandmaster 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox map

Is the map in the infobox working for other users now that it includes <imagemap>? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WOW that is quite clever, I'm well impressed with it. Good work AxG. Me thinks its worth a special award for pure genius. Wesley☀Mouse 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Good, good. That sorts out the problem of "Who's the yellow country? It doesn't say in the article and I don't like Geography." Just hover or click on country to see. Although it currently only works on this article just for testing, and the code is from {{Infobox Eurovision/2012}}. During the early stages of an article, when clicked they will go to redlinks. One more thing, should the 'Yellow' countries be added linking to their pages without the year? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say yes to the yellow countries, link them to their respective "country in the Eurovision Song Contest" pages. Might be worth also linking Lebanon, Tunisia, and Liechtenstein too, as they have articles of their own. Wesley☀Mouse 16:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
OK they are now linked. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Time of the contest?

Should there not be somewhere saying when the contest will take part? Ie. 20.00 GMT? I don't even know if that's correct. - Jetro (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe all semi-finals and finals start at 19:00 UTC, which is 20:00 BST, and 21:00 CEST, regardless of where the contest is being hosted. The times for this year are given here, and although it says they in CET, they mean CEST. The time of the final, as it is fixed, is mentioned at Eurovision Song Contest#Format. I don't have a strong opinion on if the times should be given on top of the date in the year article as well, although it would be subject to MOS:TIME and WP:TIMEZONE. CT Cooper · talk 16:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Cooper girl (from James Bond, not an insult). I don't think I'll bother. :) - Jetro (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of where the constest is hosted, interesting, in fact, in Azerbaiyan it the Show is gonna start at 0:00 hours of the next day, the final will take place on may 27 at 0:00, that's curious and makes me wonder, is the show really followed in those countries with time zone considerably ahead of CEST?, they would be awake until 2 o 3 am? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.27.207 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect though, the EBU are based in Switzerland, and they base all their times for all contests on CET (CEST). So in that respect, the contest will still take place on Saturday 26 May (across the majority of Europe). Wesley☀Mouse 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC News, 08-May-12

Those of you can watch the article on Eurovision here: at about 20 mins in I mention this because there's a controversial article on the human rights watch stuff which blows everything we've got here redundant. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm! I've just watched it, and all I can say is I'm speechless (for once- LOL) I'm in utter gob-smacked territory. Wesley☀Mouse 20:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That report video is also split into the top two articles here bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=eurovision, as well as a nice text entry for the third one. Hopefully there will be less commotion when the ESC is hosted by Sweden next year ;) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Eh-hm Spain next year teehee. Sorry for the forum-type response there. But these finds are looking more and more interesting indeed. Where do we add it on the article? More to the point, can we add it to the article? Well... can we! can we!  :-) Wesley☀Mouse 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
A saw it on the BBC News website earlier today and I was going to mention it, but someone beat me to it ;) I don't have anything against adding more detail as it becomes available. CT Cooper · talk 22:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening and interval acts

Found these on eurovision.tv; [25] and [26], the return of Ell/Nikki, Lena, Alexander Rybak, Dima Bilan and Maria Šerifović. I just don't know whether these are opening or interval acts? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Would a temporary list of "Invited acts" not be sufficient for now, until we know which is opening/interval? Wesley☀Mouse 15:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a list of "Invited acts" would be better, as neither article states who is performing as an opening act, and who is performing as an interval act. Lukex115 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
They are interval acts for Semifinal2. ESCToday have confirmed. Wesley☀Mouse 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian commentator

I asked the people managing the official FB-site of Melodi Grand Prix (NRK), if they could confirm Olav Viksmo-Slettan's return as a commentator. They said yes. http://www.facebook.com/mgp.nrk/posts/439789779382160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, wouldn't the use of this be classified as original research? Welcome the views of others on this. Wesley☀Mouse 16:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
What does that mean? :)
I mean, Wikipedia has some guidelines that we abide to when it comes to adding content to encyclopaedic articles such as this. Firstly, we need to make sure sources are reliable; then we need to make sure content doesn't contain original research. Facebook has been used before as a reliable source, so isn't a problem. But its the fact you asked NRK a question and they replied back; I'm not sure if that would be borderline original research; and as a result I asked the views of others on the project to see what they think. Wesley☀Mouse 19:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ESC 2013 page

When will we make an Esc 2013 page? CoolAbc (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

When we know who has won the 2012 edition. Wesley☀Mouse 22:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Last year it was made one week before the final. CoolAbc (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that about a week before up to a few days before is the most appropriate time to start the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 article.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The exact time has varied from year-to-year, but the ongoing precedent seems to be no earlier than a week before the final and no later than after the final has finished. There was an AfD nomination for 2008, 2009, and 2010 articles, but none for 2011 and 2012, and hopefully it will stay that way for 2013. CT Cooper · talk 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, yes I am back, albeit not at 100% focus level due to unforeseen turn of events; so bear with me if I start to sound a little subdued in my comments. Of course, going off previous EBU history, we know that they will announce the provisional dates for next years contest any day now - so those dates can be included onto 2013 article. But if we were to make the 2013 article available for editing a week before we knew who had won the contest, we'd have to think about possibilities of what may or may not happen. Would the article come under vandalism attacks with people adding their own prediction preferences of who would win? Would we need to semi or fully protect the article until the moments after the final had took place - and a winner was known? Do we really need to be putting ourselves on an anti-vandalism witch-hunt and constantly reverting such edits, when we can easily just wait a few more days and get things done with correct details as soon as we know the new host country. Wesley☀Mouse 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agrees with User:BabbaQ CoolAbc (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So basically, going off my suggestion of making the article available as soon as we know the provisional dates for 2013, and not beforehand? Wesley☀Mouse 15:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference 83

The reference is in Norwegian, not in German. The reference is from NRK's on-demand site... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2012/Archive_4&oldid=1142438211"