Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014/Archive 3

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

The Cypriot withdrawing is sure?

Τhere is a chance of Cyprus not to withdraw eventually from the competition as stated here http://oikotimes.com/2013/10/07/breaking-news-money-found-now-its-up-to-cybc-to- accept / is it true; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonh143 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We already have this in the 'Other countries' section for Cyprus, they have offered it to CyBC, but we don't know whether CyBC have agreed to do this, and so it is best for Cyprus to remain there until we know otherwise. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonh143 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia 2014

In interview with OGAE Poland Tijana is unsure about language of her song 'Pobeda'. source: http://eurowizja.org/index.php?p=2164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.54.128 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

In the returning artists section, it is stated that Paula Selling and Ovi will be the first duo to have entered the stage twice. I thus refer you back to 2013's contest , where Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankoulov represented Bulgaria as a duo for the second time. As such, Paula and Ovi are certainly not the first duo to have been returning artists, so please can you remove the statement which suggests that they are.

The specific change to be made is from:

Romania's Paula Seling and Ovi's last performance was in 2010 when they performed "Playing with Fire" and will be the first duo to have entered the stage twice

to

Romania's Paula Seling and Ovi's last performance was in 2010 when they performed "Playing with Fire"

Already done with this edit. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014

89.210.180.196 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please make your request in a "change X to Y format", and provide reliable sources for verification. Thanks. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Valentina Monetta's song

It has been announced that Valentina's song will not be revealed until 14 February. Here is a source (in Italian): http://eurofestivalnews.com/2014/01/03/san-marino-slitta-la-data-di-presentazione-del-brano-per-lesc-2014/

Please determine if this is reliable. :)

71.190.163.220 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

source confirming the participation of greece

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=at_least_36_countries_represented_at_eurovision_in_2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.77.64 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Italy

Resolved
 – It is uncertain if San Remo will be used as the selection method for Italy. Would be best to wait for confirmation before re-adding to article.

Is it confirmed that the Italian entry will be chosen through the San Remo Festival? Aejsing (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. I've removed it several times before but people keep adding it back. I've removed it again. Pickette (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Aejsing is correct, actually. It was announced a while back on either ESCToday or Eurovoix, I cannot recall which of the two sites, but I do remember it being mentioned. Wes Mᴥuse 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
According to this article by Eurovoix, Italy is more than likely to internally select their artist this year rather than using San Remo. Jjj1238 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That will be interesting if they've changed their mind and opted for internal. In that case then, I'd say we best wait for certain, especially if there's newer sources stating different to ones published a couple of months ago. Wes Mᴥuse 08:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
ESCToday has published a few articles about Sanremo where in the articles they say RAI still hasn't confirmed that Sanremo would be used. [1] [2] Pickette (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wesley, it was a question actually. I asked about it because the source used for the San Remo festival did not say if the Italian entry would be chosen there. Aejsing (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I only noticed that afterwards. However it would appear this matter had swiftly resolved itself following the source which Jjj1238 highlighted. So in my opinion, it would be case closed. Thank you to all who took the time to participate in the debate. Wes Mᴥuse 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Something else about Italy. Looks like Italy will be in the draw in the end, only Germany appears to be assigned to a semifinal, according to this article of Eurovision.tv: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=slovenia_joins_eurovision_2014_semi-final_draw_on_monday. SimoneMLK (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive performers

It might be noteworthy that Gary Lux has as well represented Austria in three consecutive contests from 1983 - 1985. But in 1984 his participatino was as backing singer for Anita. In 1983 he was part of West End group. This may not count as three years in a row being backing singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.138.60 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really count as "consecutive" in the manner that the article is addressing. We mean consecutive as in being the main performer. Wes Mᴥuse 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Do "we"? OK. The usual wiki STASI in action. Lesson learned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.235.232 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Allocation

As we wait for an article, here's the list of the allocation:

(ABC order)

Semi Final 1:

First Half Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Estonia Iceland Latvia Russia Sweden

Second Half Belgium Hungary Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Portugal San Marino Ukraine

Dfizzles (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Voring: Denmark, France & Spain

Semi Final 2:

First Half Austria Georgia Israel Lithuania Malta Norway Poland

Second Half Belarus Finland Greece Ireland Macedonia Romania Slovenia Switzerland

Voring: Germany, Italy, United Kingdom

UK announcement

Be aware of users adding '10 March' to the UK artist column, of which one Twitter fan account is saying.[3] -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 00:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, AxG. Might also want to watch out for the Geri Halliwell rumours too, as reported by this website. Wes Mᴥuse 01:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Table sources

I added table sources and updated artist and song names based on what was on the Eurovision.tv pages. This was done last year too but my edit was reverted so I'm just writing here to clarify that. Pickette (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Voting irregularities changes (include or not)?

Should we include the fact that the EBU has decided to change and tighten their voting irregularities procedures? [4]. Considering that it was Azerbaijans accused voting fraud in ESC 2013 that made this change happen.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should, yes. Wes Mᴥuse 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Good :) Sorry for the late reply.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps at the "Format" section of this article Wes?--BabbaQ (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Madeira/Azores on map

Is there a reason Madeira and the Azores are not shown on this map like the Canary Islands are (bottom left)? 92.40.248.60 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Laziness I suppose, and I should know having added the Canaries to the map in 2010. I do think I was going to add them at the time. But today the question is when do you stop? The Netherlands have islands in the Caribbean and then France has French Guiana + more. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Good point regarding when do we stop, but why start and stop at the Canaries? Madeira is closer to continental Europe than the Canary Islands are and unlike the Canaries, Madeira is within the European Broadcasting Area. Ideally all outermost regions would be displayed on the map but if not then only the three closest to Europe and to the European Broadcasting Area (Madeira, Azores and the Canaries) being shown is a possible solution.188.29.164.42 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2014

Elad newberger2 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC) ad in montenegro that the song will be presented in march 2014

 Not done - please provide a reliable source. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 15:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Greek national final

Is this source reliable? --Gce (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

EscXtra is regarded as reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Sources. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind at all about the reliability of the site, but about the reliability of the news (original source is OGAE Greece). --Gce (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Poland

My country (Poland) confirmed decision in tomorrow - 25 February: http://www.wirtualnemedia.pl/artykul/donatan-i-cleo-reprezentantami-polski-na-eurowizji-otrzymalismy-propozycje Please correct the table :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poland7 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparantly the official confirmation on Tvp.pl has been removed. You get a text that translates into something like “this page cannot be found”: http://www.tvp.pl/o-tvp/centrum-prasowe/komunikaty-prasowe/my-slowianie-na-eurowizji/14156701 Aejsing (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Romania may disqualify?

In this source said about possible disqualification from the competition of Romania for not paying the minimum contribution in order to participation in the competition. Kirilloparma (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't trust exclusivNEWS.ro; they seem to be sensationalistic and cheap. And they're not even fair. They have an article which says that Paula and Ovi will win the selection "if the voting will be 100% correct" and which adds all kinds of pro-Paula and Ovi propaganda. They have failed at being a news website, because they can't discern between wishful thinking and actual facts. I propose waiting for official information; it's only a matter of days if it actually turns out to be true (but I highly doubt it). —  Andreyyshore  T  C  16:28, 27 Feb 2014 (UTC) 

Albania song title change

The official website has changed Hersi's song title to "One Night's Anger". No confirmation on which language she will sing in, though. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl4271 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

UK 3 March

RememberDecember91 (talk · contribs) has added locatetv.com as a source for the UK's announcement, I've backed this up with source from the Radio Times, it's very basic info though with no synopsis. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbia on map

Kosovo can not participate in the ESC according to this source and shows up as has no plans for a participation in the future http://www3.ebu.ch/cms/en/sites/ebu/contents/news/2013/03/rtk-pledges-to-adopt-core-public.html .While other countries have declare the independence as Abkhazia, include on the map along with Georgia. So why should not Kosovo be included on the map together with Serbia since Kosovo is not recognized as Abkhazia and since neither and it wants to participate in the competition?

I believe Kosovo is represented separately on almost every map of Europe on Wikipedia. By the way, Kosovo is recognized by 108 different countries and Abkhazia is recognized by only 6, so there's a big difference there.Jjj1238 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Kosovo is recognized by 108 countries and different Abkhazia only 6, but that is no reason to include separate from Serbia on the map, from the moment that has not made its own contribution and since it is not fully recognized by all countries of the world. When Serbia participates in the contest and rightfully Kosovo included therein. I think the map needs to be changed. Indeed, Kosovo is a state (with limited recognition always) politically, but not recognized as independent by the International Telecommunication Union for Eurovision is Serbian. Jonny14321 (talk) 5:18, 1 March (UTC)
The above message, apparently posted at 5:18, 1 March by Jonny14321, was actually posted at 18:34, 1 March by 5.54.91.3, no doubt the same person who has used the IP address 5.54.94.209, and who has tried to forge two different signatures. It may or may not have been posted by the single-purpose editor who has also used the name Jonnhy14321. (Note the difference: one name has an h, the other doesn't.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
To be fair Kosovo is an entirely different case than Abkhazia etc.. Kosovo got independence by legal measures and the same can not be said about Abkhazia sadly. Kosovo should and will remain separated from Serbia both in real life and on the map.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I insist, Kosovo is not recognized by the International Telecommunication Union, Agreements for true that Kosovo is recognized by legal measures, etc. but here we Eurovision, not politics. Until you do, then Kosovo own involvement, participating with Serbia. By the way Kosovo is not recognized by all countries of the world.-- Jonny14321 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.94.209 (talk)
You can insist all you want it does not change the facts of this situation. I can understand that if you are Serbian the Serbia/Kosovo conflict is a hot topic. But on Wikipedia we follow guidelines concerning inclusion of different information. Abkhazia/South Ossetia and Kosovo are two entirely different situations with Kosovo being of a much higher level of independence than the other two. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think "Jonny14321" is right, but never mind. Moreover I believe that Serbia and Kosovo are not going to ever participate separately in the same competition. --Jim13 (Jim13) 3:12, 2 March 2014 {UTC} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.94.209 (talk)
Considering that you are both Jim13 and Jonny14321 I can understand that you agree with yourself :) When you do not sign a comment it makes a bot to sign your comment with your IP address my dear. Yes, you migh be right so then it is no problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Stating that 'Serbia and Kosovo are not going to ever participate separately in the same competition' is rather WP:Crystal, relations between the two are gradually improving, but probably a long way off seeing them together. The map is also based at Wikimedia Commons, and not here, and thus the map is used on other languages, also anyone can edit it. Despite not being a member of the EBU, Kosovo has still participated in the Eurovision Young Dancers. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 13:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Update

Tanja has been selected by Estonia to participate in ESC 2014. Is it possible for someone who is native in Japanese to translate the singer's page into that language? J4lambert (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

UK artist

Rumours going around the social networks is that Molly Smitten-Downes will be the UK entry, but please do not add here until we have a reliable source and until the artist is announced tomorrow. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see she has been added now with a source from Esctoday. The same source is also used for the title "Children of the Universe". However, the source actually sais "Although the song has not been officially confirmed as of now, it has been strongly suggested by Twitter users that the name of the entry will be called Children of the universe. Official confirmation is set to be revealed on the UK Launch show tonight via the BBC Red Button channel at 20:25 CET". Isn't it a bit early to confirm the song title, when it's just 'suggested'? Aejsing (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Danish commentator

... will be Ole Tøpholm, like in the past three years: http://www.dr.dk/melodigrandprix/Nyheder/2014/03/08094437.htm Aejsing (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Montenegro

Two more things: 1) There is no source for the Montenegrin song title (and on EBU's site it still sais To Be Announced). 2) The calender sais nothing about Russia announcing the song today. Aejsing (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

About Russia, I've removed The Tolmachevy Twins as the artist because Oikotimes is an unreliable source for information and ESCKaz says the information is unconfirmed plus there hasn't been an announcement from the Russian broadcaster confirming anything. I'm also unsure why the Eurovision.tv calendar is being placed as a source for the Russian dates - I added a note about not adding The Tolmachevy Twins until there was an official confirmation but it was removed. Pickette (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First returning duo?

Under returning artists, there's this sentence: "Romania's Paula Seling and Ovi's last performance was in 2010 when they performed "Playing with Fire" and will be the first duo to have entered the stage twice." Is Jedward not considered a duo? They performed in 2011 and 2012. (Or am I missing something?) Robyn2000 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I had thought about that statement too. Perhaps Jedward have finally been forgotten about. LOL. Wes Mᴥuse 13:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess Robyn is right and that statement should be removed or changed :)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I'm slowly retuning back to editing duties. I decided to take a well-earned wikibreak, and in all honesty I feel so much better from it. Wes Mᴥuse 13:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back!.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision cross-over

Last year we mentioned in the returning artists section of the 2013 article about the first JESC artist to crossover to the adult version (Nevena Božović represented Serbia as part of Moje 3 and became the first contestant to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest after competing in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, where she came third in 2007). This year there's the first ever JESC winning act crossing over into the adult version (Russian entry). Worth an inclusion into this article under returning artists? Wes Mᴥuse 13:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned definitely.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at Carl Espen. The likely winner of tonight national final in Norway. I just created a small stub. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Twins

Since The Tolmachevy Twins are counted as "Returning artists" despite only participating in the Junior Eurovision Contest. Should Mylené and Rosanne from the Junior Eurovision Contest 2013 be considered the last twins to take part instead of Jedward? Jjj1238 (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not if they only have participated in the Junior edition. The day they do participate in both contest then perhaps. But until then Jedward is the only twins to have participated in the Eurovision Song Contest. Until now.
It's worth noting that there are also twins in the group Twin Twin, representing France this year. Brothers François and Lorent are fraternal (non-identical) twins. Robyn2000 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
In a section about returning artists, I think it's enough to say that they participated in the JESC previously. The stuff about twins seems trivial and irrelevant. Pickette (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with this. For comparison, there's no mention in Eurovision Song Contest 2011 of the two sets of twins who performed that year. It is just trivia! Robyn2000 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Even though I've fixed the grammar on that section about twins, I have to agree with Pickette on the fact that it does come across as too trivial. Wes Mᴥuse 17:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Portugal: Susy vs Suzy

I found a discrepancy with the proper spelling of the Portuguese entry.

The Eurovision.tv article spells her name as both "Susy" and "Suzy." Six times as "Susy" and once as "Suzy." [5]]

The RTP website for Festival da Canção spells it as "Susy." Website

The YouTube video on RTP's channel spells her name as "Suzy." [6]]

I'm going to argue that the correct spelling is "Susy" as that is what the majority of the Eurovision.tv article uses as well as the RTP website.

Dfizzles (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So it seems the original Eurovision.tv article has been moved and changed to 'Suzy'. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Portugals entry

Someone has changed Susys entry to "Disputed" at the participants list. I am not sure about the sources used and in my opinion Susys entry should stay until confirmation of disqualification or whatever that will happen. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the "Disputed" edit. Until any official confirmation it is Susy who will represent Portugal.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Also in it.wikipedia someone (an IP) made this changment (that I consider a vandalism) and I reverted it. Two sites of the reverted edit (here and in it.wikipedia) are petitions, not sources. --Gce (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone changed Susy's entry back to "Disputed" with a bunch of petitions as their "source". Susy is representing Portugal until an official statement by RTP says she isn't, and the Wikipedia page should reflect that. Axiemeister (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian song

Is it possible to provide a source that actually confirms that the Russian song will be called "Shine". The source used here sais noting about that. It's just EBU's article saying that The Tolmachevy Twins are confirmed. Aejsing (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it's on EBU's list now. Fine :-) Aejsing (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
But I notice that EBU call them The Tolmachevy Sisters, not Twins. Aejsing (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

the name of the portuguese song in english is " I Want to be yours" 186.87.138.175 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

This is concerning the nation referred to as "Macedonia". As it may be known, for the Eurovision Song Contest and in many international sporting events, this nation is supposed to be referred by its internationally recognized United Nations name, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "F.Y.R. Macedonia" or "FYR Macedonia". In the article concerning this nation, it is listed as the "Republic of Macedonia", but for articles pertaining to the Eurovision Song Contest, it is appropriate to use its United Nations name. Gang3171 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Gang3171 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Sam Sailor Sing 08:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Please change Macedonia to FYR Macedonia. FYR Macedonia is what is used for the Eurovision Song Contest. This should be done to all articles concerning the Eurovision Song Contest. Gang3171 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: At least one person asks this every year. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Sam Sailor Sing 08:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

Requesting addition of Australian Interval Act in Semi-Final 2. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=australian_superstar_to_sing_at_eurovision Have a nice day. :) 124.149.115.182 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I suggest that IP takes their time to actually word a sentence or two to be added, if it is of importance. Sam Sailor Sing 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The spokesman from israel will be Ofer Nachshon

i didnt find any internet source but I remember that the IBA said they will not change their spokesman and he hosted the Israeli choice for this eurovision. 212.199.205.68 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Poland Language

I was convinced it was going to be in English and Polish until the official Eurovision CD turned up on my doorstep. The Polish entry was completely in Polish. With the usual language source no longer updating, there really should be a source for the Polish song's language. Spa-Franks (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

this article by wiwibloggs confirms the final version of the song will be in Polish and English. Jjj1238 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But why "Us Slavs"? The Polish phrase "My Słowianie" means "We are Slavs", or "We are Slavic", or maybe "We, the Slavs". I don't see any reason to write here "us" instead of "we". --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that's the name that the Poles entered the song as. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

San Marino Commentary Team

Lia Fioro and Gigi Restivo will be providing Italian language commentary (within San Marino) on RTV1 (TV) and RSM (Radio). John Kennedy O'Connor and Jamarie Milkovic will be the commentators on RTV2 (TV), RTV Web TV (Online) and RTV Sat (TV) from Copenhagen, commentating in English. Eurofestivalnews is a fan produced web page. Not a reliable or acceptable wiki source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.123.18 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? That website has been very reliable in regards to this type of information in the past. Pickette (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable or not, it is a fan produced website and this unacceptable under the terms of wiki. Surprised you didn't know that since you appear to "own" this page.

Did I slip back to last year when again someone was making these kinds of comments in relation to John Kennedy O'Connor being a commentator for San Marino? I suppose you're also not that same person, right? Argue against the broadcaster then, they have the same information listed there: [7] Pickette (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've checked for sources about what's being claimed above and I couldn't find anything to suggest that the pair of John Kennedy O'Connor and Jamarie Milkovic will be providing commentary for a television broadcast on RTV 2 and RTV Sat. Another source from the broadcaster seems to make it clear that this English commentary is only going to be broadcast online while the Italian commentary will be broadcast on their television channels: [8]. If they end up announcing otherwise then it can always be added to the page later. Pickette (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Other Awards

This year, Eurovoix.com and Esc-plus.com, two reputable Eurovision websites created Eurojury (link). I was wondering if you guys thought this should be included in the Other Awards section as it seems to be a good award that'll continue in the future. Jjj1238 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Eurojury is that for some countries, the "jury" is literally only one person. This year at least, I don't think the numbers are there for it to be considered on par with the OGAE poll, but perhaps it will attract more jury members in the future. Robyn2000 (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a very huge and notable difference between the OGAE poll and this newly created Eurojury. OGAE are an established international network of Eurovision fans, and the organisation alone has recognition from the EBU. The members of OGAE pay a membership fee, and plus their poll has been going on for many years. This Eurojury is only a poll organised between independent Eurovision-related websites who's membership isn't fee-based. There is no proof to say their poll is purely made up or actually based on the "votes" of past Eurovision participants from each respective country that is partaking in the Eurojury poll.
Take ESC Nation for example. They have a 2014 poll, and have done polls for the same length of time as OGAE. However we don't show their results on this article as they are independent and not as notable as OGAE. Wes Mᴥuse 20:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dutch commentators

The link of the source for Dutch commentators is broken; please, update it with a working link, thanks. --Gce (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, but this source doesn't report the channel that broadcast the event, the voice needs another source for it... --Gce (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Take two,  Done. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese broadcasting

The source doesn't state that RTP 1 will broadcast the show, but only that a RTP channel will do it (1st semi-final and Grand Final live, 2nd semi-final delayed). Have you a source to confirm RTP 1 as broadcasting channel? --Gce (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I could find, the schedule for RTP 1 is in line with that despite the source not mentioning RTP 1 directly. This is what their schedule is like for the days of the two semi-finals and the final:
It looks like the second semi-final will be delayed. Also the first semi-final will be broadcast on RTP África according this this [9]. About Poland, I removed TVP Rozwyka from the listing previously because I thought this should cover the initial broadcasts since broadcasters repeat the shows several times on different channels. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to include that or not. But just a heads up, a similar situation is occurring in Germany as well as the source listed on this article says that all shows will be broadcast on EinsFestival on delay as well. Pickette (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea votes

Because of the current situation in Crimea I personally think a mention about the fact that EBU today announced that votes from Crimea would be counted as votes from Ukraine should be included in the article. What do you think?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should probably be mentioned. There seems to be a lot of news articles discussing the matter from what I've seen. Pickette (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have now added a mention about it. But could someone else take a look at it and please edit it if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Edited it and included the all important wikilinks to articles. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Looks good to me. On a side note though, what on earth is going on with the lead section? There appears to be a mention of the Royal Family in the lead, but they are not mentioned in the article. I thought the lead was suppose to summarise the entire article? Would a section in the article covering production be adequate? Wes Mᴥuse 09:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Wesley, that if the Royal Family is mentioned in the lead then it should be mentioned in a article section as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Where do you think that belongs in the article though? I was thinking the same thing as Wesley when it was added but I'm not sure where it should go. Pickette (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
On second though perhaps a small mention in the lead as it is now is the best option. I can not find a good place for it to be placed. Perhaps making a "Royal guests" section under or over the "Crimea" section.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

How about a sub-heading with the title "Invited guests", within the format section. That way we could also mention the Australian singer and any other people that have been invited specifically by the host broadcaster. That should cover everything and make it look tidier. Wes Mᴥuse 13:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Although saying that, in previous year's articles; we have had sections for 'graphic design' and 'national host broadcaster' which could also house this information. Wes Mᴥuse 13:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on both. Do what you think seems best Wesley!--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Arrival of wide public and notable guests may relate to the contest’s venue and surrounding centers-venues to host them – under the scope of Organization. The royal Danish family attends as audience to a contest being held at its country, and “home city” as the source specify, which connotes location. Also, the first “Location” paragraph finishes with pointing the attending media and fans accommodations, as the press center at the “Eurovision Island”. So placing a mention of specific guests’ attendance at the continuation of this paragraph will enrich it. In general I think it’s best to have “Organisation” title with sub-chapters for coverage outside the show itself, as a lot of events-articles have. But as this relates in general to Eurovision articles, I refer here to the “Location” section. I also support “Format” section, for detailing about activities of those guests active within the shows. In this regards, I support the “Format” for detailing if the Danish royal family and other persons happen to come to the stage, take any active part at the show or even being introduced while sitting in the audience. אומנות (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, there is similar kind of info at the 2013 Eurovision article: Over there appears the detailed information about separating 2 neighboring countries in advance under “Format” – for the aspect of building the 2 semi-shows, as in this 2014 article. And there I added their separation fact briefly also under “Location” to highlight the explanation of offering more seats to people from those countries, to watch their representatives at the semis. Also, Malmo as host city eased the arrival from Denmark via the Oresund Bridge, so these are examples that may show relation between location and audience. אומנות (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see how a new section entitled 'Organisation' will work to be honest. the word 'organisation' has two meanings - to organise something, and a company; of which may confuse some people. The current 'Format' title (which I might add has been used for as long as I have been a member of Wikipedia) enables us to cover a far greater scope. For example, we are able to house sub-topics such as Allocation Draw, Graphic Design, National Host Broadcaster. And from what it states in the Manual of Style for WP:TVPRODUCTION, the header Format is suppose to be used preferable choice. Wes Mᴥuse 14:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Saying that, and after further pondering on the matter; perhaps a sub-topic in the title of 'Organisation' which could then be included in the main scope of 'Format', might work and would remove any confusion between organising something and a "company" organisation. That should then allow us to incorporate other minor things that the host broadcaster (DR) have said will be included in the show - such as inviting Australia to participate as an interval at in semifinal 2; the invitation of JESC 2013 winner to perform as an "invited guest", plus the quirky "12 Points Song" that the presenters will perform under the pseudonym The Eurovision Twelfies during on of the 3 shows, which has also been released on Euorvision's YouTube account. Wes Mᴥuse 14:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
“Organisation” title is in reference for the info under “Location” chapter, not instead the “Format” chapter, as I wrote that I refer the accommodations organization at the “Eurovision Island” and the city (Press and club centers, hotel rooms considerations and the natural connection of the Danish royalty attending an event held at their country-city), in relation to mentioning both audience-guests and performing-guests arrival to enrich the prose-flow of the first “Location”-paragraph.
“Organisation” title was also used on Eurovision articles and afterwards renamed “Location” to enrich general geographical-historical info about the host place, which was agreed afterwards as non-relevant, leaving only facilities as accommodations and local-conditions that were factors in choosing a place. “Organisation” is understandable as describing event’s conception and preparations, and not about a company, once reading the chapter’s content. There are also the examples from 2013 Eurovision of incorporating guests with location, and bringing a good article example - 2008 Summer Olympic with "Organization" chapter for location choosing, with considerations to the attending athletes conditions. In any case, the WP:TVPRODUCTION also notes “Background”/”Production” and “Conception and development” titles – which precisely fits the “Eurovision Island” concept under “Location”. So I equally support using one of these titles, instead of “Organisation”.
The “Format” independent section is supported by me as well, with all its current information about stage design and voting procedures – as anything expressed within the image and procedure of the show, and therefore it enriches to elaborate at the "Format" (independently from mentioning guests at the “Location” chapter), about roles of guests performing or introduced within the show. There can be a “Show” sub-chapter under “Format” to cover the plot things represented during the show – competitors, interval acts (as the examples of the Australian singer and Junior Eurovision winner), hosts way of presenting the show, the running of the voting and such. The “Location” info will be enriched with mentioning all notable attending guests, and the “Format” enriched with a dignified section about all acts and running of the show, instead of creating very small-specific and more random sub-chapters. אומנות (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I can now see what you mean by using 'organisation' as a sub-title. However, we could theoretically end up mentioning organisation in the context of location, as well as organisation in the context of format. So with that we'd potentially be duplicating a sub-topic header. So perhaps finding more appropriate sub-titles and placing them within the more appropriate headers of 'location' and 'format' might be more logical, and thus avoiding us sounding repetitive with titles and causing confusion. I suppose at the end of the day, it all boils down to logic and using title/sub-title headers that serve the purpose that they intend to serve, rather than become overzealous and ambiguous. But that is just my opinion of course. Wes Mᴥuse 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(Bit delayed, had big family events for the past days). Good there is an understanding for organization connections and enriching chapter's flows (aside from chapters titles discussion). So I was about to arrange guests at “Location” and now another editor already did just that. That’s in parallel to the agreement on “Format” chapter, to detail guest's roles at the live show, so “Format” stays focused on the show and its procedures.
In regards to chapter-titles, your theoretical situation (possibly ending with ambiguous and duplicated titles) is not just your opinion to avoid, but any person's. You made a mix of earlier things we both adressed separately: The thought of using “Organisation" as a sub-title for "Format” things was yours – In relation to my suggestion to place "Organisation" as main-chapter title only instead of "Location" title (as I showed with the 2008 Summer Olympics) which leaves room for more specific sub-chapters, as well as my separate suggestion for a “Show” sub-title to cover the show’s acts and roles under the independent “Format” chapter. I also addressed that "Location" title was created for a former purpose of geographical and historical host place details, which followed my view to now enrich it with things around the show (alongside details of choosing venue), which in turn brings logic of changing "Location" main title in order to serve the wider content better. I also wrote I support “Conception / Development” chapters’ main-titles instead of “Organisation”, which are naturally common in accordance to appearing on the TVPRODUCTION guideline – the guideline which you provided. This comes down to logic of covering the guests information from different details-angles on different chapters – with different titles and sub-titles, and therefore in practice cancels the theoretical situation you mentioned. In any case, my main focus for now was about explaining guests in connection to Location, and that is now fine. אומנות (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Using a bit of commonsense, we can't really mention invited guests in a section covering location. Location is all about places, about the host city, and the bidding phase, not invited people. The opening paragraph on format would be able to house information on invited guests as they were part of the format of the show (albeit in a small part), but then we'd need to think of a sub-title that would suit this kind of information. I suppose the more logical part here would be to create the "National host broadcaster" sub-section within the format area. Then we'd be able to mention the fact that the host broadcaster invited these people. That makes more perfect and commonsensical logic. But as had been suggested on my talk page, we cannot purely contain this information in the lead section alone, basically because WP:LEAD explicitly states that the lead is to summarise the article. So if these guests are not mentioned in the article, then they cannot be mentioned in a lead which summarises such article. Wes Mᴥuse 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First, that you now realize to come back to this discussion doesn't mean you can keep forcing your preferences to the article in parallel, as it cancels the sincerity of your ongoing discussing action now as well as your "common sense" pretendings which perfectly show you are not up to listen to anyone. Your prefered edits were changed.
Second, you formerly suggested above to even put the Royal Family arrival under "Graphic Design" which deals with images, stage looks and in regards to motto, which has no connection to attending audience and that clearly shows lack of common sense. I wrote above a few days ago that I understood we had an agreement for this specific organisation thing regardless of "Organisation"-title discussion, and you didn't reply. Now you kept putting it under "Format" and continued further to create your overall view with yet another poor 2-sentences sub-chapter as another thing I clearly object, instead of enriching flow of existing paragraphs as exaplined in my view above. "Format" chapter is well focused on things that come to an expression within the show and which effect the show itself. The Danish Royal Family doesn't have to do with the show procedures and its build up such as the allocation draws. The Royal Family falls in connection to attend an event held at its city - outside the narrow thinking of place vs. people, but rather logic of people in connection to their home place. Also applying for common sense, it was already raised few times above how you changed "Organisation" title with no consensus based on your own thought, as you put geographical and historical details about host place and renamed this sections "Location". That was also in regards to why I raised using more general chapter-title according to the TVPRODUCTION which you provided, so the invited guests would be under a wider title alongside the "Location" sub-chapter, and yet you keep not noticing I wrote this a few times or delibaretly ignoring. I also wrote this Royal information doesn't belong in the lead at all but suggested it as a revert-back for the time being as it had been moved from "Lead" to "Location" already a few days ago and by another editor, not me. I don't have a problem waiting for more comments and in the meantime revert back to how it was before your edits today as I'm not forcing my views, and as you can't always force your views without respect to consensus and discussions. Open an RFC as you know well to do by now so that more editors also more outsiders will take part here to reach agreement, which ever it will be, will be fine with me. אומנות (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoa there Mr. If I choose to take a few days off from editing, that is my choice. You too took time off did you not? Or was the "Bit delayed, had big family events for the past days" just an excuse? And if anyone is forcing their preferences onto the article it is you. Nobody has stated in this discussion about posting information on the Royal Family, into the location section. Only you have made that reference, and the debate above is still thrashing out other possibilities. You haven't even read the other options. And yet you say that I agreed to your proposal. Sorry sir, but you'll find that I never agreed to any such thing. And anyone who reads my comments in this debate will see that I never made an agreement. So stop putting words into my mouth and continue with this debate, rather than edit warring over something that has yet to be decided upon. Wes Mᴥuse
When I replied I understood you agree about this information, it was not only after you said you see what I mean with organization coverage, but also after you kept talking only about using "Organization" as a title. After this comment, it was still another editor who placed "Royal Family" under "Location", not me. And I explained it several times. Yesterday you edited that very discussed information instead of keeping discussing. Furthermore, when I wrote you again yesterday about this discussion reminder and suggested to remove this info for now or move it back under "Lead" just to wait for more comments, for communication and to show I'm not forcing my view, you kept further creating a mini sub-chapter for this and insisting it has to stay there, as another thing I wrote earlier I disagree with. That's while you keep saying yourself there is a disagreement and to wait for others comments. But this results with the article staying with all your preferences. With that I never said you aren't allowed to take few days to reply, as I was clearly referring to the fact you made those edits once you chose to take an activity, instead of keeping activating the discussion here. If this is still not clearer now, I don't have the physical health to keep explaining and can't find clearer words for my view. If others want to share their views of what they prefer, then I will be fine with every outcome as I wrote. אומנות (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see. So there's confusion then, fair enough. First of all you mentioned about "organization", to which I stated that I "could not see how it would work" (basically seeking further clarification from you). You then provided more details on "organization". Following that I replied that "I understood what you mean" (as in you has basically answered my initial question). But that did not mean that I had agreed with placing the data under location. The original agreement made on 1 and 2 May (which can be seen above) was to place the information under format, using the sub-title "national host broadcaster". However I had not got round to doing what was agreed back then, purely because I had a few things to sort out at home - and therefore placing it in that section now, was just following up on what had been agreed; and that is where it should stay for the meantime. Then we can continue this discussion, and if a different outcome is reached to move the content elsewhere, then and only then should it be moved - not before. Wes Mᴥuse 13:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Alcazar spokespersons

As I understand it the fact that Alcazar will be presenting Swedens voting results in the final will be the first time that three people gives the votes for a country at ESC. They got special permission by EBU to do that. Interesting. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is the first time that a band is voting spokepersons for a country at ESC as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Juries

EBU has published here jury members for all the participating country. --Gce (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say the jury data might be more beneficial if they were included to the respective Country in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 articles. As they are where we include the voting for each country. Wes Mᴥuse 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree doktorb wordsdeeds 08:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Voting for Russia from Ukranie?

I am not a native speaker of English but this sentence doesn't sound right to me:

Therefore Russia can be voted for from Crimea but not from Ukraine.

Shouldn't it be "Russia can be voted from Crimea but Ukraine can't be voted from Crimea"? Thanks for any input.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I also wondered about that, and looked at the source (reference 45): On one hand it says at the beginning: Votes cast in the disputed region of Crimea, Ukraine, will be registered as Ukrainian votes. This means the people there are able to vote for Russia, but not for Ukraine. So this is as you say. Later it says what you quoted above, so I think you are right and that it's probably confusion of phrasing within the source. אומנות (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Therefore Crimea can vote for Russia but cannot vote for Ukraine. seems like it'd be a better sentence to me. The wording was wrong in the original. Jjj1238 (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Putting it in simple terms, Crimeas votes will be counted as Ukrainian votes. Not Russian. Why make it so difficult.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Er! The EBU have further clarified themselves on this matter, in case we had missed their press conference (see here). Jon Ola Sand has explicitly stipulated that the voting in Crimea depends on the operator in place. If Ukrainian operator, vote counts for Ukraine. If Russian operator, vote counts for Russia. It currently appears there is still a Ukrainian operator active, so votes at the moment from Crimea count for Ukraine. But we all know from past history that unexpected change in circumstances have arisen before in the wonderful world of Eurovision. So this section could end up being re-written several times over between now and when the voting breakdown gets published by the EBU. Wes Mᴥuse 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The finish of the quote in the article reads as if the entire country of Ukraine can not vote for Russia. It says that Russia can be voted for from Crimea but not from Ukraine. That’s instead of phrasing that Crimea can vote for Russia (just as the rest of Ukraine), but that Crimea (as considered to be within Ukrainian votes), therefore can’t vote for Ukraine. The meaning of the information is understood here, but the quote in the article bares an error-phrased meaning. I suggest simply use the first sentences from this same source, which says that Crimea count as Ukrainian vote and therefore can vote for Russia and not for Ukraine, as "Jjj1238" similarly suggested. אומנות (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the last sentence from the quote, however not sure on whether a '...' is needed at the end. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
That's probably best, as the full explanation is already written above the quote. Looking at the quote within the sourced-article, as it finishes with a dot '.' I believe it's right to finish with a dot also on the article and not with '...', although I understand what you mean as the source has the continuation sentence which you removed. Thank you for fixing this. אומנות (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

ΝΕΡΙΤ opened, the Greek International broadcasting of this

http://www.newsit.gr/default.php?pname=Article&art_id=287248&catid=3, http://www.lifo.gr/team/bitsandpieces/48262. I found these articles in Greek language and they says that NERIT (New Hellenic Radio, Internet and Television) opened today Sunday 4 May. The second channel of broadcaster will opened after the Eurovision, at the end of May. Therefore, NERIT will be the broadcast of Greece, as they said in the news of NERIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.143.6 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

Change text in line with British English from:

"There are, however, three less countries competing overall compared to the previous year making thirty-seven participants the lowest amount since 2004.

to:

Overall, however, there are three fewer countries competing compared to the previous year making thirty-seven participants, the smallest number since 2004.

Mistrem (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 10:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bookmakers favourite is Sweden

Bookmakers favourite now is Swedens Sanna Nielsen. --94.234.170.75 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This piece of information is not relevant to the article content/Eurovision portal. Dfizzles (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding columns to separate Jury and Televotes.

As the EBU have published the separate jury and televotes, this should be added as separate columns. --Halma10 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No. See previous previous year's articles on how we have shown the split jury/televotes. A different method is used for this purpose. Wes Mᴥuse 00:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Voting procedures in Semi-Final and Grand Final

Since the EBU released complete voting details this year it shows during all three shows that in some countries only the Jury vote was used for the final result and in the Grand Final Georgia's Jury vote was not counted. Based on previous years when this happens I added the indicators on which voting procedure was used in which country. Yes each table has the source for this edit and should not be completely reverted. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Russia

Perhaps there should be some mention of the crowd reaction to Russia's entry, and the booing that accompanied any votes awarded to Russia. The last time I can remember a contestant being booed in the final was Belle and the Devotions in Luxembourg in 1984. The corresponding article states "1984 is also a notable for the audible booing that could be heard from the audience, particularly at the end of the UK's performance. It was said that the booing was due to English football hooligans having rioted in Luxembourg in November 1983 after being knocked out of the UEFA European Football Championship." Silvía Night was booed in the semi-final in Athens in 2006, but failed to qualify for the final. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This will no doubt be included at some stage. The contest has not long since finished, so please be patient as this article will go under a lot of alterations in the coming weeks or so. Content about incidents do get included, but only when there is sufficient sources available to enable us to maintain the verifiability policy. Wes Mᴥuse 01:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that Wesley. Sources are now starting to appear.
Skinsmoke (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for finding/providing those sources, Skinsmoke. I've a sneaky suspicion that the majority of editors from around Europe will probably be heading off to bed after the eventful night of Eurovision. Hopefully some content will get added about this incident once we've all refreshed from sleep. If it hasn't been done by the time I awaken, then I shall try and come up with a reasonably worded piece about the incident - unless of course if you wish to be bold and add something yourself? If you're unsure on how the incidents are dealt with, then you are more than welcome to check out Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Incidents for ideas. Regards, Wes Mᴥuse 02:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

'Incidents' section?

When will this section be started? For this was far from a perfect edition of the song contest, with many controversies, incidents and technical problems throughout. For one thing there was controversy surrounding the Armenian entry after Aram Mp3 was alleged to have made homophobic remarks about Austria's Conchita Wurst. There was also the heavy booing heard during the first semi-final after Russia was announced among the qualifiers; this booing went on during the grand final when the Russian spokesperson announced their votes and when the Russian entry received top-three result points. The booing got a lot of media attention even though Russia has always been known to receive audible booing at recent Eurovision contests. During the voting, at one point there was an issue with the digital rectangle designed to accommodate the spokesperson's camera staying on and flashing on and off when it wasn't supposed to (this happened for a few seconds [I believe around the time of Israel's vote casting]). The Italian singer experienced technical difficulties during the first few seconds as her microphone was evidently not working. The issue was fixed very quickly, however and the song went on as if nothing (or was this intentional...?). T.W. (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Give people chance. The contest has not long since finished, and people do need to sleep you know. There is no rush to get the article completely written immediately. The greatest work takes patience and time. The incidents section will be written in due course, and when editor's have replenished themselves from a good night's sleep. Wes Mᴥuse 03:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, but I was concerned because most of these were not even mentioned in the talk section, and some go back to the first semi-final and even before that. The Aram Mp3 issue, for example, was several days ago. I might as well add another to the list which I overlooked earlier. During one of the semi-finals, I think the second, there was a bit of a delay in the vote tallying. The hostess then said that "we"'d take a look at the Eurovision 'Book of Records' meanwhile, but then after a slight paused, she announced we'd see another recap of all of that night's songs. Obviously something went amiss there. Good night! :) T.W. (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Just so you know, there was also an incident where they had a problem with taking down the flag of the Denmark performance. There was a bit of a delay before the next performance started. --81.151.141.130 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've looked into the incident concerning Emma Marrone's performance and the issue with the microphone. It looks as though the microphone didn't actually fail her per sé since the microphone was probably programmed to go on when the vocals were expect to start and thus avoiding any "preparation" talk prior to that to go unheard. She did in fact begin vocalizing prior to the time the vocals in the song actually start which is probably why they were not heard. I hope I'm making sense. T.W. (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Where it is mentioned about the Lithuanian vote presenter's remarks about Conchita, Julia Zemiro, one of the SBS Australia commentators also reacted strongly against it and applauded the Danish host for his response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmrenwick (talk • contribs) 07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Final Scoreboard

All countries are now on the Final Scoreboard. Please check for accuracy. Thanks in advance! Dfizzles (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Only jury voting?

Why didn't some countries (Albania, San Marino...) let their people vote? It needs to be explained. Schnapper (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The official website says... The voting of San Marino in the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest was based on 100% jury voting. In case of technical issues with the televoting or an insufficient amount of votes, the Rules of the Eurovision Song Contest state that 100% jury voting shall apply. Same explanation for Albania. 92.19.233.199 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We can only provide an explanation once there are sources that help us to validate and verify what it is we are explaining. Wes Mᴥuse 15:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Final split results

I have calculated the split results from Austria and The Netherlands here they come: Televoting: Netherlands 220 points and Austria 306 points. Jury: Netherlands 200 points and Austria 214 points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.114.27 (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

When EBU released split results from 2009 to 2012, they included the jury-only countries in the televote split for countries that didn't have a televote; you can see this in the 2012 page where the albanian jury is included in the Semifinal 1 televote split result. The current results (verified by me) count the four jury-only countries of Semifinal 1 and the two jury-only countries of Semifinal 2 and Grand Final in the televote split result, as well as Georgia's televote-only result in the Grand Final jury split result, as they should. Further edits should correct any counting mistakes I did, but should NOT remove the jury-only points from the televote split result. Both Semifinal 1 split results should add up to 1102 points total (19 countries times 58 points each), both Semifinal 2 split results should add up to 1044 points (18 countries times 58 points each) and both Grand Final split results should add up to 2146 points (37 countries times 58 points each). Axiemeister (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Final Results

Just to let you know that there is an error. It says that UK got 12 points from Israel, but I seem to remember them getting this from Ireland. --81.151.141.130 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not see this error. Dfizzles (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ireland vote is missing the 8 and Israel has 2 x 8 points listed. UK got 40 amd I suggest that 8 is in the wrong place 92.19.233.199 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks. This has been fixed.Dfizzles (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Georgias

"Georgias jury votes was declared unvalid as all the jury members had voted exactly the same from 1 point up to 12 points. A statistical impossiblity according to EBU. Only Georgias televoting result was used in the final after this"

This is chocked full of mistakes and I can't correct it because the page is protected. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And the only source is a Swedish tabloid with serious credibility issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.195.223.104 (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Australia's contribution to Eurovision 2014

Would we be able to work in a couple of sentences about Australia's contribution to this year's contest? Celebrities of note are commentators Julia Zemiro and Sam Pang; and Jessica Mauboy who performed on stage. Witcheemon (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic spokesperson

The name of the Icelandic spokesperson is spelled Benedikt Valsson, not Benedict Valsson. I do not have a reference for this, but since Benedikt is the normal Icelandic version it would really be more necessary to have reference for Benedict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.139.231 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

Hewhi (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Semi final 1 split results are wrong, I would like to change them.

What is wrong with them, so that an autoconfirmed editor can change them for you. Wes Mᴥuse 19:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I attempted calculating the split/televote results myself and I got varying numbers. A third calculation might be able to locate the issue as my eyes may be tired of looking at numbers from the scoreboards. Dfizzles (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming the EBU have published the split results and designed them in such a way that it becomes a firework display of numbers? Would you like me to give a hand, Dfizzles? Wes Mᴥuse 19:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically I think it is easy, it's sorted by country. But any help in any form would be much appreciated. I took all of the data and put it in a spreadsheet and my numbers added up correctly on both the Jury and Televoting (each country and voting body should have 58 points to award each) including the votes that were Jury only.Dfizzles (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Split results

In case of either the televoting results or the jury votes not being used for a country's overall points, the remaining eligible vote accounts for both sides of the split voting table. Why is it handled differently than in previous years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.164.168 (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

Please change "Malta – Carlo Borg Bonaci (TVM, all shows)" to "Malta - Carlo Borg Bonaci (TVM, semifinals) and Sander Agius and Daniel Chircop (TVM, final)" Dmtwinn (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The reference supplied in support of the current text tells us who commented on the first semi-final, but is silent on the remaining semi-final and the final. Without any supporting reference(s), I am very reluctant to change the current wording. Can you provide a suitable reference please and then reactivate your your edit request so that it can be looked at again. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Portugal related incidents

Could anyone please add these two incidents: - The presenter said the wrong number for the Portuguese entry in the first semi-final, which led do a complain by RTP to EBU, and ultimately Portugal failed to qualify because of one point. - During the votes, when Spain appeared, the map depicted the whole Iberian penynsula as Spain, making Portugal part of Spain, which many Portuguese fans found disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.163.86 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Each broadcaster uses different telephone numbers, and we can not say that Portugal failed to qualify due to this mistake. As for the map, not really notable since some other country names extended outside their borders for readability, and Portugal was also not has 'highlighted' with dots and was darker than Spain. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Each broadcaster uses different telephone numbers, but they all have the same last digits regarding the song in question, and the guy said 14 when it was 13. As taking into account that Portugal failed by 1 point, it may have affected. But that's not the point. The point is that the Portuguese fans got mad and that RTP made a formal complaint to EBU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.163.86 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
At what time in the first semi final did the presenter say this? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Right before Suzy singing. It may or may not have affected the result, but the fact that there is a slim possibility it did (and Portugal lost by 1 point) outraged Portuguese fans. If you search for "Eurovision song contest | Apresentador erra o nº da canção portuguesa" on Youtube you'll find it. 78.29.163.86 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Não te preocupes, pá! Só ganhávamos se levássemos lá o Castelo Branco! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.8.163 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

English translation of the above Portuguese comment: "Do not worry, man! Only get there if we had the White Castle!" Wes Mᴥuse 12:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Lithuanian broadcasting

Someone recently mentioned that during the performance of the British entry, the Lituanian broadcaster had some problems with the broadcasting. I'm not sure how it could be developed into a sub-section of the "Incidents" section. Video can be found here. Dimitris  talk 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Other countries section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This entire discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Other countries section, for wider engagement from all members of WikiProject Eurovision and other sister projects. Wes Mᴥuse 18:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Danish Expert keeps adding a list of other countries without sources and not only that but going against the RfC decision which was agreed upon by the Project. I have explained until I am blue in the face as to why the information should not be added, but alas I get ignored as usual. Wes Mᴥuse 18:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wes: I have to remind you about WP:AGF. We also just started to discuss this matter a few minuttes ago, so your claim that you have "explained until I am blue in the face" is untrue. I was not aware that a previous Project dicision was taken recently about the scope of the chapter "Other countries". I will now check if it indeed say what you claim. But either way, if it indeed does, I will however challenge that we now change it. I think it makes much more sence to let the "Other countries" chapter list all those other eligible countries not showing up for one reason or another. This is what I did in my most recent edit, where I also added a reference to document that all active EBU members are potential participants. The reason why I insist the list should include all potential participants who decided not to show up, is in order to ensure we comply with wikipedia's principal of always providing complete information. I also think its relevant to readers, that this list is complete. Other editors than me, can subsequently dig into or search for additional references explaining why the varoius countries did not show up. This is not something we need to find and add in advance. It is a fact we have 19 eligible countries who decided for one reason or another not to show up. This is both relevant and notable information to include in the chapter we have about "Other countries". Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So my edit summaries are not classified as explaining huh? The decision does state what I said, but that is your choice if you think I am a liar, I have no reason to lie when I provided you with not only the link to the discussion, but also snippets of context from that aforementioned discussion. Listing every single country is just unnecessary. Why add them when they only get removed come the GA review anyway. Plus you are listing countries such as Algeria and Egypt who are already mentioned in the main Eurovision Song Contest article. The only countries that need to be included in the 'other countries' section are those who say something that is relevant to the annual article in question. Anything more is just over-padding. Wes Mᴥuse 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I always welcome civil debates, like the one we have now. Just wanted to emphasize you had no right to complain about my response. In regards of your linked RfC decision, I can see it is two years old, and that you indeed together with three other editors at that point of time, felt it was inappropriate to list those "Other eligible countries" not showing up for the yearly event - unless they had published some news/info about their intention to participate in this particular years event. My argument however goes, that the GA rating also ask for content completeness, and I strongly feel the list of "other countries" is incomplete if we do not list all those other potential eligible participators deciding not to show up. If there is no story this particular year mentioning why they did not, we can just leave the name of the country (as I did in my edit), and curious readers can click on the link to read about the previous history of the country's participation or intention to participate. In that way, we do not clut up the yearly articles with the same sort of info each year. What we currently discuss is, if its OK or not to have 7 additional country names mentioned by the list, which is really not a huge enlargement if you ask me. If we do it, as I just suggested, we at the same time ensure we have "completeness of content". Let me remind you, that the list of eligible particioners is not static from year to year. This list of eligible particioners (=active EBU members) has changed each year going backwards in history, which is why it is relevant that we also reflect this at the yearly editions of the Eurovision Song Contest articles. In my point of view, my latest edit only improved the article, without any content related drawbacks at all. So I now propose we start to do it this way instead. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose making this kind of change. What may be incomplete to one person, could be complete to another. A bit like the old phrase "is a glass half-empty or half-full". It all boils down to how you perceive it. Listing every eligible country even if they have not shown an interest for a particular year is just overzealous and undue content, not to mention repetitive. If a reader wants to know more about other countries that have not taken part every year, then there is the link at the bottom of the article that directs to a 'featured article' List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, and that contains all the necessary information about other eligible countries. That is sufficient in my eyes. Listing all the countries like you suggest, would only add to confusion of a reader. They'd be under the impression that Algeria or Egypt were considering to enter a contest - and that would then mean we are publishing factually incorrect and potentially misleading information. A line has to be drawn somewhere on what kind of information is included in that section. Previously we use to have sections entitled "possible withdrawal, debut, returns, etc". Such headers made the article sound speculative, and that was why a more appropriate section 'other countries' was created. I'm pretty sure that other project members would be in agreement with me here, that your suggestion is clearly padding and undue content. Wes Mᴥuse 20:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't list countries like America, saying they don't qualify, so I would agree with Wes that anything else is unneeded. - 97rob (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You accidently missed my point. America is not an eligible particioner (=active EBU member), and would therefor never be included in my proposed expanded complete list. My only proposal is, that the article should feature a complete list of all eligible particioners (=active EBU members) who for one reason or another decided not to show up. The concern about misinformation stressed by Wes above, can easily be adressed just be renaming the chapter title from "Other countries" to "Other eligible countries". I maintain it is interesting to the majority of readers to know the list of "other eligible countries" who decided each year not to show up. When I myself recently digged into this matter, it was of huge encyclopedic value for me to learn that 19 out of 56 eligible countries decided for one reason or another not to participate (and who they were). Funny enough, I could however at the same time fully support if some of you had suggested we should delete all info about Kosovo and Liechtenstein, because they never became eligible countries (=active EBU members) ahead of the event. In my point of view, this disqualify the mentioning of those two countries in the list, but I can accept to keep them if some of you feel strong about it. Danish Expert (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
As you say you like completion. This article for example is regarding Eurovision 2014. The countries currently listed in the 'other countries' section all stated for one reason or another about their plans for 2014. And thus makes the 2014 article complete. Countries like Algeria, Egypt, who did not even mention anything about 2014 makes their inclusion overzealous. The core policy is for everything to be verified with citations. As there are no news reports for the other eligible countries, then we'd be publishing unsourced material which then becomes contested and ultimately removed - and then you're back at square one with the list that is currently in use. If a reader wants to know more about other countries who are eligible but have not yet participated, then there is the article List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, to which a read can visit for information on those eligible countries. No need to include them on annual articles, unless there are news reports regarding them for a particular year. Wes Mᴥuse 20:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I acknowledge both approaches can be considered to be complete from each side of our editorial perspectives. What it really boils down to, is however if we now consider it best - or most rellevant - to let the chapter "Other countries" display a:

1) List of countries with public stated participational declines for this years event.
2) List of countries declining the invitation for this years event.

I definately still prefer the second approach - which only is a small enlargement of the current approach 1. We know as a fact that 56 countries were invited for the 2014 Eurovision, and that 19 of those for one reason or another decided to decline the invitation. For me as a reader, it is interesting to learn who all the absenties were, and I would normally expect being able to read this piece of info directly at each yearly article of the event. The added reference at my introduction line feature a map with a clear identification of all those countries receiving an invitation for the event (=all active EBU members), so if we stick with approach 2, we definately have everything appropriately sourced to add the 7 additional country names who silently (without making a public statement about it) decided to decline their Eurovision invitation. What it boils down to, is really an editorial choise of either letting the scope of the chapter "Other countries" follow approach 1 or approach 2. Clearly you prefer the first one, while my preferal is the second, and we have both presented our arguments. The debate is open, and I hope many other editors will chime in and leave argued comments if they prefer the current approach 1 or my counter-proposed approach 2. Danish Expert (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my guns and strongly opposing the change. As you have already pointed out, your method is how "you expect things to be done", which is extremely POV pushing. From what I have been informed, this debate gets thrashed out every year, with the same outcome resulting from it - and that being to only include countries that have explicitly stated for one reason or another about their participation for a particular year, and the fact it can be verified with sources. OK the EBU invite everyone, but there are no published sources to show this invitation nor are there sources to enable us to verify that countries such as Algeria have declined. Therefore we'd be publishing original research and/or publishing our own point of view, which goes against one of the 5 core policies. Besides, I was informed that there was a overwhelming consensus against the inclusion of listing every eligible country onto every annual article, that was established well before I joined both Wikipedia and WikiProject Eurovision back in August 2011. So this suggestion is just running without gas and never going to get a full agreement from everyone. Wes Mᴥuse 12:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, my proposal and support for approach 2 can not be labeled as WP:OR or WP:POV. Reason why its not POV, you can already find in my previous reply - in short I listed some logical arguments for why it should be part of the yearly event article (the most important being that it is factual relevant to know the list of invited countries for the event, and the fact that this list of countries being invited is not static across all years - but in fact different from year to year). Another point to keep in mind, is that EBU only started to invite all active EBU members in 2004 when they introduced the semifinale format, which mean our changed approach would only affect all yearly event articles from 2004 onwards. Reason why my second approach proposal is not WP:OR, is that we can easily find a refence listing the 56 country names having received the 2014 Eurovision invitation (in addition to the map reference I already provided you with), and then no further source is really needed when we compare this invitational list with the "list of participating contenders", in order to figure out the obvious conclusion for our question: Which of the countries ultimately decided to decline their invitation for the 2014 Eurovision?. This is supported by the WP:RS policy, stating that no sources are needed for obvious conclusions that no readers can be imagined to dispute. Finally your last argument that "we shall not ever shift approach due to the simple fact that a group of editors reached consensus about the current standard for a chapter scope in 2012", is also invalid. At Wikipedia we never reach consensus based on previously stated opinions or reached consensuses, but upon the strength/quality of currently posted arguments for the case. So let's focus on this. Given that we have no wikipedia policy breach for my proposed second approach, the question boils down to whether or not we want the scope of the "other countries" chapter limited only to display a:
1) List of countries with public stated participational declines for this years event.
Or the scope of the "other countries" chapter extended to display a:
2) List of countries declining the invitation for this years event.
I hope we can limit our debate now to be focused about, which of the above two approaches we think best suit the scope of the article. Because for both approaches, no wikipedia policies are really breached. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Danish Expert that his approach is not more or less POV than only adding those countries about which we happen to have a first hand source; only adding those that commented without showing the bigger picture just because we have no reason for the declination is also a bit focussing on news reports and not very encyclopaedic. It is allowed to use primary sources for things which are factual (number of employees of a company etc), and if Eurovision says they sent invitations to all, it makes sense to list them all, as concluding from the fact "were invited" (ref'd for 2014) und "have participated" (ref'd a lot), which countries have chosen not to participate is the sort of service we may be expected to do for our readers, without getting into synthesis territory. We could of course look at a way to carefully state what we are describing by saying i) EBU membership is a requirement and ii) of the EBU members, the following countries did not participate. In that way the reader has to do the math and may conclude that they were allowed, but decided not to participate. Would that be a good idea? L.tak (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
And wandering into synthesis territory is exactly what we'd be doing, purely because there are no sources, not even primary ones, that provide citation that Eurovision say they sent invitations to every EBU member broadcaster. So without that then Danish Expert's approach would be original research. Like I said, the suggest approach gets declined year after year, and one only needs to check through every annual archive to find the reasons for the decline. So if the outcome year after year is a big fat no, then I highly doubt that consensus is going to be changed overwhelmingly, and not even by force. Wes Mᴥuse 10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I will look into the fact is we have sources about eligibility; because I and the impression we had, so I'll come back to that. I must say that by stating in very post that others will back you is not a very helpful argument, but a strawman's argument. You are free to mention it, but doing it every time does not give the arguments more merit. Let's focus on the present discussion and not on year after year conclusions, but see if we can get to a consensus here that would be agreeable for all 3/4 of us.... L.tak (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I said I would come back with a new look on the facts.. Danish suggested "For a country to be eligible for potential participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, it needs to be an active member of the EBU.[1] As of May 2014, the list of potential participants comprised 56 countries, of which the following 19 decided not to participate: " I agree the last sentence is maybe minimal original research, as only 46 countries in total may participate... However, it is clear from his source, all EBU countries are eligible; and I still think we should not only mention those countries for which we have the excuse of non participation mentioned. It is very clear they didn't participate, and it is very clear that they are EBU members... I propose to rephrase to ""For a country to be eligible for potential participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, it needs to be an active member of the EBU.[2] The following EBU countries did not participate:[followed by an alphabetical list], xxx of which (list the countries with refs) cited financial reasons. Other reasons were: (list the rest) "" Any ideas? L.tak (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't stating that other's would back me up. I was merely pointing out that I was informed by an editor that the consensus wouldn't change and that there had been discussions year after year with the same results every time. Previously, the annual articles always listed "possible return - possible debut - possible withdrawal" And the fact the articles used the words "possible" made it sound very WP:CRYSTAL. Thus it was decided to change the "possible" approach to the current "Other countries" and thus we were able to mention all countries who said they were withdrawing, retuning, etc. But only those countries that had a source. The main Eurovision Song Contest as well as the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest articles goes into more detail about eligibility and the number of countries - which from what I gather was the more preferred choice. I suppose one compromising method could be to only list countries for each specific year (like we have at present) with a hatnote linking to to countries article for those who may wish to read more about eligibility. That way we're covering every aspect. We already mention if a country withdraws, returns, or makes a debut at a contest. To also mention that Algeria, Egypt etc were invited but chose to decline that very invitation is just making us look repetitive and slightly original research. However, if the rest of the project members "vote!" in favour of this proposed change, then I'm sure I could be swayed into the majority. But this kind of debate that would impact every article, would ideally need to be held on the project talk page and not on here. Wes Mᴥuse 13:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any point just repeatedly listing year-on-year every country that is eligible to participate but didn't. If we have a reliable source which mentions Eurovision Song Contest YYYY and the country concerned, then it's fine to point that out in the article. Otherwise, we're going to end up with lots of repetitive lists with places such as Vatican City listed year after year with no new information. Each article after all is supposed to be a summary, not an exhaustive collection of all information of remote relevance to the contest. List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest already has a list of persistent non-participants, which can be expanded with more countries and information if needed.
Wesley Mouse has already identified that this has been discussed before and the current practice is based on past consensus. I would add that there have also been users which have tried to push things the other way and tried to exclude any mention of a country unless they're participating, and that school of thought may yet way in on this discussion. On the general issue of consensus, Consensus can change, but I don't see a new consensus yet, and really for a change that will affect lots of articles, at least a note on this discussion should be left at WT:ESC and possibly some other pages. An RfC would be a nice idea, but in the past people have started one after a lively debate, but nobody has participated. CT Cooper · talk 14:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Wes: Your previous claim is untrue, that no source exist for my posted fact that all active EBU members are invited each year. I have already posted you the source in my initial post. Now I will do it again, with a direct cite of the line you apparently missed to read: Every year, the invitation to participate in the contest is sent out to all active Members. While some of them choose not to take part, most of them do. If that was your main objection, it has now been removed. In regards of L.tak's compromise proposal, that we could remove the WP:Math part of it (leaving the math to calculate how many invitations were send and how many declined), then I am willing to accept leaving this out, as a compromise and to meet your concern for a possible breach of the WP:OR policy. As I mentioned earlier in our debate, the consequence of the change for our 2014 article would only be that we now expand the list of mentioned "other countries" to also include the 7 "other invited countries who declined the invitation" (but did not make a public statement about it). Moreover the rule that EBU invite all active EBU members was only introduced in 2004 - and thus our approach also to reflect this by the yearly event articles of course only should start in 2004 and going forward. I also earlier also posted the argument which nobody has rebutted, that the reason why it is important for each years article of the event to feature a complete list, is that the name of invited countries change each year - in accordance of the change made to the list of active EBU members. In example, Azerbaijan and Montengro were not invited in 2004. This is exactly my key argument, why we should have this info listed at each yearly edition of the Eurovision article, in order to reflect these yearly changes. So I do not support your compromise proposal, just to add a hatnote for the main Eurovision Song Contest article and the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. If editors in here insist, that we move the debate to the ESC project talkpage, then I can accept this to pave the way for the change of the approach. At the moment, I however feel we get much more responces here at this talkpage, than we would probably get at WT:ESC.
In your previous reply you also mentioned the historic reason why the "other countries" approach was selected in 2012. While I agree with you and fully support, that it was smart to prefer this current standard compared to the previous one dealing with "possible return - possible debut - possible withdrawal", this does not change my continued support that we expand the list of "other countries" to include all those who "received an invitation and declined", rather than only list those who "received an invitation - made public statements about an intend to participate - but by the end of the day published a public statement explaining they ultimately decided to decline the invitation". I think it is very confusing why the list should be narrowed down to this special situation, and following an encyclopedic logical way of thinking, it makes much more sence simply to list all other countries "receiving an invitation but declined". As stated earlier, such changed approach would not conflict with any wikipedia policies. For those countries declining the invitation without giving a public statement each year, we simply just show the name of these countries without the additional referenced info about why the country declined (which we currently have for those countries publishing their official reasons for the decline). Danish Expert (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So are you just going to ignore what CT Cooper had to say? No dealing with this issue purely at this talk page location is not going to help matter. The change you are proposing will inadvertently need to be implemented on other articles too. And seeing as these are articles under the main scope of WikiProject Eurovision then the project's talk page is the logical location to hold such discussions. But from the way I currently see it based on comments above, 3 editors have shown great opposition towards your proposal. And when this has even been brought up in the past, nobody liked the idea. OK people are allowed to change their mind, but as this gets discussed endlessly every year; then I can't see any outcome progressing from this latest round of talks. Wes Mᴥuse 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
And in response to your remark "such changed approach would not conflict with any wikipedia policies". In fact there are that quite a lot of core policies that your approach would conflict. Have you forgotten What Wikipedia is not? Your approach would violate the spirit of WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. And WP:OR, WP:SYNT and WP:UNDUE have also been noted. How many policies did you say it complied with? By the looks, a lot less than how many it conflicts with. Wes Mᴥuse 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No I will certainly not ignore CT Cooper, who also said the response at WP:ESC was not as high as here at this talkpage. My idea only was, that we should keep our current debate open here (because it started here), for at least for one more day, before moving it to WP:ESC. I will leave it for you and CT Cooper to decide if we already today shall open up a parallel/summary debate at WP:ESC. For the moment, it seems like we are at least two editors L.tak and myself included, who after reading all your arguments continue to support changing the approach, so I am not alone to support this change, and most importantly also have posted some very valid arguments, why it make sence to change the approach into a "list of other countries who were invited but declined". Moreover your continued concern that my proposal would conflict with all those policies you mentioned, is not fair, and to be honest I am rather sure you will find that out if you post a RfC to check if the majority support/decline your complain about policy breaches. As I said, no policies are breached by my proposed changed approach. I consider this to be a straw argument you keep pulling out of your hat. Until otherwise prooven, none of those policies you listed are being breached. If you want to convince me and others about a breach, you need to post valid specific argument about why such policies are breached. Until now, I have not heard any valid arguments supporting your view, that multiple wikipedia policies would be breached by the implementation of my changed approach.
On a sidenote, I forgot to mention, that I still support removal of Kosovo and Liechtenstein from the list of "other countries" - despite their publicly stated intension to participate. Reason for this, is that they as non EBU members never were invited, and if they are not even inside this club of potential invited countries, it is not notable/rellevant enough just to list them because of having expressed "intention" both to become active members and participate. Personally I also intend to fly to the moon - I just need to find a sponsor to pay for it (just like the Liechtenstein TV-channel each year ask their government to sponsor an active EBU membership) - which mean it is not really notable to mention in any wikipedia article - because it is more dream than reality. In regards of Kosovo, it is also evident they never have any chance to participate before being recognized as a sovereign country by all European countries. Their active membership of EBU and participation in the Eurovision, will not be possible until that point of time. So why should we continue each year to list this info at the "other countries" section. They were never invited. Just like other non fully sovereign countries like the Basque country or Transniestra never will be invited. The final argument why "intention" is a bad criteria to list "other countries", is that Australia each year intend to participate in the Eurovision, but according to the rules they can never become an acitve EBU-member, due to the geographical position being outside the EBA. So a long with my proposed change of the "other countries" list, I also support a complete removal of the info about Kosovo and Liechtenstein. Danish Expert (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Danish Expert (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What is it with the underhanded hostility approach in every response? Sheesh, it is taken me all my time to read what you write, and then by the time I get to the end of it I have forgotten what the hell was being said. You state that it is not fair that I pointed out the conflicts? One could also say it is not fair that you are forcing a change that has been rejected many times in the past. And in answer to your question, I think an RfC would acknowledge that your approach would violate the spirit of what Wikipedia is not, and thus my point of conflict being validated. And there is nothing wrong in moving this entire thread, warts and all, to the project talk page. Everything that has been said would just be there instead of here. And I oppose your request to remove Kosovo and Liechtenstein. They were agreed to be included because they had shown interest to join Eurovision and the EBU. Wes Mᴥuse 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Your claim about policy breaches is unfair, for as long as you do not support it by specific arguments about which specific line of that policy is causing the conflict and why. In regards of removing Kosovo and Liechtenstein from the list, they should be removed based on my argumentation above. If you want it to be otherwise, let me here your specific arugmentation why. It is not good enough simply to state "They were agreed to be included because they had shown interest to join Eurovision and the EBU". Because they can not join Eurovision before they first join EBU, which make it irellevant to report at the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article, although I agree with you it could be rellevant to report this info at either the main [[Eurovision Song Contest article or at the European Broadcasting Union article. Danish Expert (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

There is an error in the scoreboard of semi.finale number one. The ten points from Moldova have been given twice whilst the ten points from San Marino are missing. The correct is ten points from Moldova to Sweden and ten points from San Marino to Armenia. Reference?: Check out Eurovision.tv.

Greetings Arild Olsen Oslo, Norway 46.15.255.110 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Removed first 10 from Moldova, and added 10 from San Marino. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In the semi-final 1 televote, Belgium should rank 11th and Azerbaijan 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.130.30 (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what determines this order? Can anyone else clarify this, Is it alphabetical? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It is about the number of countries they received points from. Belgium wins clearly with 12:7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.130.30 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone care??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.189.152 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It may have bypassed some people's attention but Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation. Please rectify the relevant maps accordingly.

For televoting purposes it was considered Ukrainian by the EBU so I think it's best to keep it the way it is, at least for any maps showing voting results. Also, please next time put your message in the box below instead of in the title, and sign with four tildes (~). Thank you. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Another error in scoreboard

In the scoreboard for the grand final, Hungary is credited with receiving three points from SLovenia. This is wrong as those three points went to Switzerland.

Thanks, greetings Arild Olsen, Oslo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.255.110 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Hall

Should we mention in the article that the B&W Hallerna had to be dismantled and put back to its original state straight after the final because of EU directives? I find that to be quite interesting information. First build all of this new stuff and then take it all away.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read that roads, and every single infrastructure that wasnt there before had to be removed. And that the halls are now back to its original look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment from 80.192.134.202

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be all about discussion and compromise. So look what happens when you make a suggestion that challenges the established orthodoxy like I did the other day. Yes that’s right. Right here, on this very “talk” page I suggested that the relevant maps on the page in question should be edited to reflect that fact that the Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation.

Low and behold, no such edit has been made and my comment has been removed forthwith without any discussion even. You leftists on here are all the damned same. You make me sick! You all talk the talk about respecting everyone's views but you only respect the views of those who you agree with. Anyone with a contrary opinion is just steamrollered and has their face ground into the dirt by your excrement-covered commie jackboot. Typical far-left globalist scum!!!!

These aren't even opinions-they’re FACTS as the vote was completely legitimate under international law and the overwhelming majority of Crimea's population voted in favour of joining Russia in the referendum earlier this year.

I wonder how long it'll take for this comment to be removed. Sod the lot of you. Metapedia is a far superior source of the truth than this crock of crap website. I don't even know why I ever bothered trying to be honest. The left under no circumstance can ever be reasoned with. Fire can only ever be fought with fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.134.202 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact is the EBU considers Crimea apart of Ukraine due to phone operators in the region. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Before the IP starts accusing people of deleting their original comment, perhaps they'd like to check #It may have bypassed some people's attention but Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation. Please rectify the relevant maps accordingly. which is where they posted it. And like AxG pointed out, the EBU explicitly stated that Crimean votes were part of Ukraine. And another editor even made note of that when they replied to your original post. Wes Mᴥuse 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Viewing figures

Does anyone have an idea how we handled viewing figures last time they broke an EBU record? Because they've broken a record again according to the EBU. I think it is a notable fact worthy of inclusion. Only thing is, where the heck to I add it to? Format? National host broadcaster? International broadcasting and voting? Or a new header "Record-breaking viewing figures", and find somewhere appropriate to squeeze the little fella in. Wes Mᴥuse 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be mentioned in the lead of the article! This is a remarkable record of the viewing figures. Almost 20 million more people watch ESC 2014 and that is a big increase. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ countries? "Which countries can take part in Eurovision?". Eurovision. Retrieved 13 May 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ countries? "Which countries can take part in Eurovision?". Eurovision. Retrieved 13 May 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014/Archive_3&oldid=1136280487"