Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011

why is italy listed under semi finalists?

shouldnt it be listed under finalists. i mean if it is a part of a big 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It has not been made clear by the EBU if there will be a big 5, or if Italy will be part of it and qualify directly to the final. The EBU is expected to announce more details at a references meeting later this month. Until then, it should be in the semi-finalist section with the rest of the countries. Greekboy (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

what about adding it to uncertain or something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk)

That is called speculation. As of right now, there is no such thing as a Big Five. The media is talking about it, but that does not mean it will happen. The media talks about tons of stuff. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

will russia become a part of the big countries

i heard a rumor of it on a forum. if it is true russia will most likely qualify for the final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

sweden will most likely sing in english

since they tend to translate their songs into english if they arent already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

norway will sing either on norwegian or english

those are the only languages that norway use in eurovision song contest.(though there is some times words in other languages added into the song.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.103.135 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Logos uploaded to Commons

I have taken note that the Eurovision 2011 logo has been uploaded to Commons on grounds that it is illegible to copyright, rather than here locally as non-free content. This marks a significant change from previous years, and I may ask for input shortly on Commons to determine for sure whether the logo(s) uploaded there are actually illegible for copyright. See Commons:Threshold of originality for more information. CT Cooper · talk 15:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Which logo? The one with the black background that was added a few minutes ago to the page or the one we had for the past few months? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The one shown here primarily. File:ESC 2011 Germany.svg doesn't matter as it is uploaded locally under fair use. CT Cooper · talk 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've received some feedback at commons:Template talk:PD-textlogo/en#Opinions on Eurovision logos requested and it appears Eurovision logos are okay on Commons. This means from now on logos can simply be uploaded onto Commons, with the benefits of this including that only one upload is needed for all Wikipedia projects, and there are no longer any restrictions on usage from the WP:NFCC. I suggest that the logos be slowly uploaded onto Commons, with the local fair use simply de-linked, which will result in them being tagged by a bot and later deleted. CT Cooper · talk 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

San Marino

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/16324

San Marino has confirmed for participating in 2011. Does not San Marino in the semifinal list of participants are? (My English is not very good, i'm from Holland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthebest (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think San Marino shouldn't be listed as confirmed till a true confirmation from SMRTV is given, till then it should be listed under "Possible returns". Their situation is exactly the same as Montenegro and Hungary, which are listed as so: they have applied, yet it's not clear whether they will participate. Please somebody remove them from the confirmed list, I've tried several times but it's always reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthebest (User talk:Guest) 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.29.51 (talk)

I believe the difference is that Hungary and Montenegro both said they have applied, but aren't sure yet, while San Marino has said they are in, but retain the right to withdraw if necessary. Any country can still withdraw at this point. I don't see San Marino's case as being any different than the other confirmed countries as per the sources used in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to retain the right to withdraw is as good as not being sure... If that's the case, I think either we list Hungary and Montenegro under the confirmed countries too, or list San Marino as undecided, which I still believe it's the best option. After all it's a same situation as that of 2009: SMRTV originally applied, and then withdrew, and that's more than likely to happen again this year. It's always possible (and better) to add a confirmed country later on that having to remove it from the confirmed list. But alas, do what you may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthebest (User talk:Guest) 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.29.51 (talk)

Yes. I also think San Marino should be removed from the confirmed participant's list. They haven't confirm they're entering. They just applied. Is exactly the same case as Montenegro and Hungary. I know that every country can withdraw before December 25th but is not the case of countries like Sweden or Ukraine whose national finals are underway or Switzerland which has already chosen its entrant. And if we are taking that into account then what... no country should be confirmed? I myself going to take off San Marino from the participants list and place it on the undecided section... I hope we reach a consensus on this matter. Tony0106 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the ESC Today source, San Marino's broadcaster has confirmed participation. The only difference between San Marino and the other confirmed participants is that the broadcaster also stated that it may end up changing its mind before the deadline. This is something that all broadcasters have the right to do. Montenegro and Hungary have not said that they are entering, but have applied leaving the option available if they chose to participate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Grk1011/Stephen I don't wanna sound rude but I'd like you to tell me in which part of the ESCToday article the Sanmarinese broadcaster confirmed their participation? Even the headline says "Will we see San Marino back at the Eurovison Song Contest along with Italy in 2011?" I'm sorry but they are not confirmed. They are in the same situation as Hungary and Montenegro. For instance, Bosnia and Herzegovina is in as it says here or France but San Marino is definitely not. --Tony0106 (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article says that San Marino has applied. Like I just said above, any country can withdraw before the deadline. The question posed by the author which you quote is simply asking the readers if they think San Marino will actually go through with it. Remember that ESC Today and other sites thrive on encouraging discussion of their articles through reader posts below them. As of now we have no reason to think San Marino will not go through with participating. Hungary and Montenegro are different because they sent in their applications, but the broadcasters did so as a precaution to not preclude a participation; they remain undecided, unlike San Marino whose broadcaster said it will participate but retains the right to change its mind. It's a different situation and I struggle to see why you can't understand this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article does not say they confirm their participation. That is what I cannot find the different situation b/w Hungary or Montenegro. That is the point. If you're considering just the fact that any country can withdraw without penalties before Christmas then we should not even have a participants list. But that is not the case. San Marino simply cannot be a confirmed participant because they haven't say they are going to compete. That is why. I think we should vote on this issue. You are actually the only way saying San Marino is in. And I am going to revert it again.--Tony0106 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, remember polling is not a substitute for discussion. That being said, it all comes down to wording from the sources. It seems to me that San Marino has applied and will compete as well, but in comparison the case of Montenegro, the are still on the fence about the contest itself and just applied to reserve their chance to compete. Every single country on the list has the right to withdraw with no penalty until late December. Either way, a consensus needs to be reached on this issue. This edit waring can not go on any longer. Perhaps adding a hidden note in the article directing users to this talk for discussion would help form a consensus? It seems that IP users are also edit waring for this same issue. On a side note, should Hungary even be included in a possible return list? It seems to me the source used is not based on much. From the source: "However, according to our sources, Hungary might be back in Eurovision in Dusseldorf with MTV." What sources? In the case of Montenegro and San Marino, it seems their respective broadcasters officially stated they have applied. Greekboy (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Greekboy and Grk1011/Stephen. I do agree that the source is rather ambiguous on whether they are confirmed or not, but from I can tell is that if SMRTV told ESCToday explicitally that they had applied it does seem pretty likely that they will participate. From what I can tell about Montenegro and Hungary is that there was probably some probing by news sites to get an answer from them, while San Marino was more open with their answer. Even now ESCToday has reported no news on Hungary, and has paraphrased news from an Montenegrin website about Monetenrgo ([1]). On the other hand news on San Marino has come from SMRTV themselves, so it seems more likely they would compete in Germany. Or, if no concensus is reached, we could just wait until the EBU release the official list of participants in a few weeks time. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

How come Liechtenstein is removed from the possible debuts section? From what I know no decision has been made about their participation yet. --Katching (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein was removed from the list as the country cannot participate as no broadcaster from Liechtenstein is a member of the EBU. 1FLTV applied for EBU membership, but was not accepted. Therefore the country can't take part. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Source on this please.. --Katching (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is needed for inclusion, not omission. There are sources stating that the country wants to and could if it gets over such and such hurdles, but as of right now, it is ineligible. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this source should help all those who say Liechtenstein is or isn't debuting in 2011. I had read somewhere months back that the EBU where looking into leaving a "backdoor" open for the nation to debut. But from what this sources briefly shows, the EBU will decide officially at the next Reference Group Meeting. http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8581 80.192.226.205 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the other link [2] I spoke about above, in which Svante Stockselius has been reported to have said that if Liechtenstein have submitted an application to be full members of the EBU, then a "backdoor" will be left open for the nation to join. Hopefully this now helps provide enough information to clear up the grey area surrounding Liechtenstein's "possible" debut. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing of articles using secondary sources

On a couple of occasions now I've noticed articles are being referenced to their source, but subsequently changed to an esctoday article referencing the original source (example: San Marino confirms participation was written by escdaily.com, and referenced as such, and then changed to an esctoday.com article referencing escdaily.com.) What is the reasoning for this? It seems strange not to reference the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukavsfan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ESCDaily is currently not regarded as a reliable source, while ESCToday is per the last discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles, though there is nothing stopping further discussion on ESCDaily, which has not as far as I know been vetted in depth by Wikipedia editors. Secondary sources are usually preferred over primary sources on Wikipedia per WP:PRIMARY, though this not a primary source vs. secondary source issue with both ESCToday and ESCDaily being secondary sources, which must/should be getting their information from primary sources or other secondary sources, as neither are broadcasters or running the content. A primary source is very close to the issue or event, which for Eurovision would be sources directly from broadcasters or the EBU. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

While I admit that I did not notice that ESC Daily was the source for the ESC Today article, I think this brings up a good question regarding it as a source. ESC Today was found to be reliable as they stated their process for writing stories and detailed how stories are checked before being published. ESC Daily seems new to the game and I couldn't find an "about us" or anything that would allow us to have a better understanding of how the website works. The way I see it right now, ESC Today is preferred because we believe they doubled checked the information before publishing the article and didn't just rewrite the ESC Daily article and publish it. Considering that they are new and seem to be reliable, I would suggest we start a discussion. As they have minimal information on their site, an email request similar to what was done for ESC Today and Oikotimes should be explored. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I take the points above. I just wanted to bring it up as on the last two occasions the source has been changed to ESC Today, although I wrote the original article on ESCDaily on the basis of an e-mail from the broadcaster itself! So it was a little disappointing in that sense. Am more than happy to help 'verify' us, as we weren't online when you made the original last a few years ago- but having said that, have been there since November of last year. --Ukavsfan (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I wish you hadn't said that because of WP:SELFPUBLISH. You really aren't supposed to write articles yourself and then use them as a source. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Honesty is always appreciated, particularly when it involves a potential conflict of interest. Self-publishing is discouraged on Wikipedia, but it is editors just publishing their own opinions so they can add them to articles, effectively getting around WP:NOR, which is most problematic, which is not the case here. However, the issue will have to be taken into account when assessing ESCDaily. CT Cooper · talk 12:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Am afraid you'll probably find a fair few people do that already. However, it's not a case of self-publishing to argue a point, merely having the information at hand from a source (generally the broadcaster itself) and updating the Eurovision page accordingly. I'd argue, though, that there wouldn't be a need to self-publish if ESCDaily was able to be sourced for its own work to begin with.--82.34.72.144 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is why enforcement of policies and guidelines on Eurovision articles in regards to sourcing is more tight than used to be. Per WP:V all sources used in articles must be (a) published and (b) reliable. My interpretation of the policy definition of self-publishing is that users making postings on websites based on previously non-published information (including e-mails) is self-publishing, unless there is some kind of editorial oversight before publication (which would remove the "self" from self-publishing). Self-publishing is allowed if the person doing it is considered an expert, and this is generally the only circumstance in which such a source will be considered reliable. The rules on sourcing about living people are more strict (which does/will include some content in this article) - self-published sources may not be used even if the publisher is an expert, per WP:BLPSPS. CT Cooper · talk 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact that a site like oikotimes, which has published more false news than any other Eurovision site over the last few months is regarded as a trustworthy source is ridiculous. Especially if you also condider the horrible use of English. Another thing that surprised me in the past: The Russian confirmation was reported first by the blog EurovisionTimes , then the news was reported by ESCDaily one day later (stating the initial publisher as source) and then ESCToday used ESCDaily as their source. The reference for Russia is now ESCToday. Why can't it be the original publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manialf (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding oikotimes, it is not really considered as a reliable source. If you look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles, there was no consensus reached on oikotimes. As the closing mod said in her summary notes, Contributors should be very cautious if they choose to use this site, particularly as involves biographical material related to living people.....I myself would treat it as a "questionable source." Personally I would only use oikotimes depending on the situation, which is what I noted when I voted it as "Semi-reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing important or controversial statements" in the straw-poll back then. Maybe it is time to re-open the discussion on WP:Eurovision on reliable sources though? It seems a few new sites have been established online since then, while some of the sites in the original discussion seem to have evolved as well. Greekboy (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one is defending Oikotimes' downward spiral over the past year or so especially. It has definitely published its fair share of rumors and the grammar is horrible on nearly every article. I believe that in our source discussion we found it to be reliable, but to use with caution. It was ok to use it for non controversial sourcing, but discouraged for information that would be difficult to source without Oikotimes. We should have a new discussion, but I am doubtful of the participation as not many of the editors adding these sources are part of the community; most seem to be fly by editors with one purpose. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

While using a good mixture of sources is encouraged, there is no practice on Wikipedia to always use the most original source available, and reliability always takes preference over originality. ESCToday is used because it is believed that they can separate the wheat from the chaff, however other sources may be considered reliable if there is another discussion on the subject. The biggest problem with such discussions is that few people bother to participate, with the general problem on Eurovision articles being many editors but few wishing to communicate or discuss issues. This is why even if Oikotimes is found to be unreliable, stopping its use would be a challenge. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me just point it out that broadcasters CHANGE THEIR MIND. Like Slovakia did on 4 different occasions (confirmed by Anders from eurovision.tv). I can guarantee that not all of you are in contact with the Slovakian broadcaster. There was in fact miscommunication within the broadcaster from their PR to their Eurovision HOD. First said they are out but on December 23rd they decided to stay due to the broadcaster being granted an extension. During this time they changed their minds two more times - you can say that a website is unreliable, but that is not the websites fault if the news changes. This is the same situation as Oikotimes with the Greek National Final list - at the time of publication it is true - but artists withdraw and broadcasters change their minds. You should source the people who work hard to find the information. Thats all I have to say. Thanks and bye. esc4me · talk 22:26, 07 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.85 (talk)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Nobody has said that broadcasters don't change there mind, this has happened many times previously, but there was clear evidence established in the last RfC of Oikotimes getting it wrong, and sources jumping to conclusions too quickly is an issue that has come up repeatedly. There is no interest for Wikipedia to race to be the first to announce something - this is not a news site, nor a Eurovision fansite. There seems to be a misconception on this talk page that sourcing is about giving credit and providing good advertising, and being considered reliable by Wikipedia is about prestige that all sites should aspire to. This is not the case, Wikipedia sources content for verifiability, and reliability is about building a professional encyclopaedia built on fact checking and accuracy in compliance with wider community consensus on how articles should be written, not prestige, particularly given that Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable. Wikipedia may be more cautious than other sites on issues such as sourcing and copyright, but as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. CT Cooper · talk 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about prestige that all sites should aspire to". Sorry I laughed a lot about that, no serious educational institute accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source at all - so what prestige are you talking about? I can tell you lots of news that esctoday had/has wrong, heres a good one for example where they EVEN sourced themselves: http://esctoday.com/news/read/16377. Now, no Eurovision website is ever 100% correct - in fact eurovision.tv even reported last year that Tarkan will go for Turkey (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=3703&_t=TRT:+Tarkan+not+to+represent+Turkey+in+Oslo) - isn't that unreliable sir? Anyway, it doesn't mean you should disclude a website when they actually get news right. See you in Dusseldorf where we can discuss this further. esc4me · talk 10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.85 (talk)

I don't think I have anything to answer here, given that your quote above clearly quoted my comment out of context; please do not quote mine what other people say here. Doing so will result in a less helpful response from me and others users, and it is considered a form of incivility by the Wikipedia:Civility policy. I actually said: "There seems to be a misconception [emphasis added] on this talk page that sourcing is about giving credit and providing good advertising, and being considered reliable by Wikipedia is about prestige that all sites should aspire to." So I was actually saying the opposite, and note that I did say further on: "This is not the case, Wikipedia sources content for verifiability, and reliability is about building a professional encyclopaedia built on fact checking and accuracy in compliance with wider community consensus on how articles should be written, not prestige, particularly given that Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable [emphasis added]." These comments are based on what has been said on this talk page in the past. I'm not sure what your point "no serious educational institute accepts Wikipedia as a reliable source at all" is supposed to be about exactly, since I pointed out that Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable, so it is hardly news to be me that neither does academic institutions. I'm not planning to go to Dusseldorf, and even I change my mind I'm not meeting up with people I don't know well. Any decisions on sources will be made by Wikipedians, on Wikipedia based on established policies and guidelines. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), this will sign your posts correctly by IP or account name. The account "esc4me" does not exist. CT Cooper · talk 10:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that when a source like ESC Today "sources itself" it means that the site was able to get the information using its resources, such as contacts at the various broadcasters. They don't just "steal" information from whatever articles they can find on the internet. Grk1011 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia

Please refrain from adding Slovakia in the list until their non-withdrawal is secured by a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.15.25 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of Slovakia from the infobox because it broke the referencing elsewhere in the article, also the source given, ESCKaz, is considered less reliable then ESCToday per past consensus in the RfC linked in the above section. If the situation on Slovakia changes, then please update all relevant sections of the article. Though I have to say, the ESCToday article used seemed preety confident that Slovakia is leaving. CT Cooper · talk 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CT Cooper, I was referring to the list of confirmed countries. I share your point that Slovakia should remain listed as "Withdrawn" till proven wrong. And it's also true what you say about the ESCToday article, however, those are old news and currently it seems that Slovakia is quite likely not to have withdrawn at all. We need to wait till the official confirmation anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.15.25 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought about making an account to edit? We need more editors who are willing to discuss changes and participate, as you have shown you are capable of. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, on your advice I made an account :) (Nathanvolkov (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Slovakia are confirmed by eurovision.tv so they must be in. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=22833&_t=43+nations+on+2011+participants+list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.220.12 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

the page on slovakia needs improvement

information on its 2011 participation is a bit vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well by all means improve the page ;) Grk1011 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason there is little information on the page is because there is little information to be put on the page so far. STV have released next to no details but once they have released some then it will be put on the page soon after. If you happen to know information that isn't on the page then of course add it, but for now all the information that we can find is on the page. Lukex115 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia will be not in Eurovision: http://escportal.cz/slovensko-definitivne-rozhodlo-o-neucasti-na-eurovizi/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.188.36 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Web site must be translated! I can't speak Czech! See this page! If this is the old news, cite may deleted! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: No one withdraw from a country after christmas! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How could they have withdrawn after the deadline? --MSalmon (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask! Deadline has been expired after the christmas! And Slovakia can not withdraw any more! So remained 43. If you have a question, ask. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, deadline expired on 25 December 2010 --MSalmon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you get it! Block if someone is vandalize! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't block anyone as only admin can do that sorry --MSalmon (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are not administrator, one of admin may block. Don't worry, no one vandalize the page! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

slovakia have withdrawn. i removed it from the list but it is back on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs)

You did not write a reason why, nor gave a valid ref to back it up. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Answer is withdraw/revoked please refrain making unconstructive edits. I'm hoped to return to 2012. And so, you will see the Slovakia map in gray. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

i got the information on slovakias withdrawal from escdaily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs)

ESC Daily is not considered a reliable source, unlike the EBU and ESC Today, of which we have one source from them listing Slovakia as participating. ESC Daily in contradicting the others, of which are more reliable. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well! We see after confirmation from EBU. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmm

In german wikipedia, i see a source like [3]. It seems there are 42 countries if withdraw! Please put this source if withdrawn. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, it is best to wait for a more official source, by the EBU. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A New Source

There is an source which Slovakia withdrawn offically.[4] Thus withdrawn, from ESCToday. Can you put this source? If you say "no" we will wait the next source. It seems, ESCToday related to EBU! It may return to 2012 after this year's absence. Well, at least withdrawn, now that was deadline. 81.215.239.22 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're too late, Hollac16 (talk · contribs) has updated the article. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And why did you say earlier that the other sources were not "reliable" when the ESCToday article shows EXACTLY the same news and quote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.153.204 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See #Sourcing of articles using secondary sources. CT Cooper · talk 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Then an RfC is in order? -92.8.153.204 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try and put one together shortly. CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

DAMN IT! Hey! At least may return in 2012. I'm tired of editing now! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-directed Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 as all the article discussed was the country's decision to (not) participate, which is redundant to this article. Unlike Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, there is not significant selection information worth keeping. CT Cooper · talk 20:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

big four should be changed into big five

since the big four because the big five the article should say the big five in locations where the big four is listed. i am tired of getting reverted so i wont edit it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It already does. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the article still lists the big four instead of the big five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:#top|talk]] • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are reading the 'Format' section, then you need the read the whole lot to understand:

“ The four countries that are part of the "Big Four", along with the host of the contest, automatically qualify for a place in the final. For the 2011 Contest, Germany is both a "Big Four" country and the host, resulting in a vacant spot in the final. At a Reference Group meeting in Belgrade it was decided that the existing rules will remain in place, and that the number of participants in the final will simply be lowered from twenty-five to twenty-four. On 31 December 2010; the official participation list was published by the EBU, which states that with the return of Italy to the contest, this nation will become a member of the "Big Five" thus permitting them automatic qualification into the finals, alongside Germany (host), France, Spain, and the United Kingdom, and therefore restores the number of participants for the final to twenty-five nations. ”

-- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Third RfC on source reliability

I've started another RfC on source reliability due to popular demand on this talk page. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Third RfC on source reliability to comment. CT Cooper · talk 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ added

Given that some topics are coming up on this talk page repeatdly, like last year, I have created an FAQ to answer common questions. Please feel free to make improvements as consensus evolves, or to add further questions/answers as necessary. CT Cooper · talk 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia again

After looked at [5], it still seems Slovakia is still listed under Pot 6, we have still not had an official confirmation from the EBU about Slovakia's withdrawal, so could this be a mistake, or is Slovakia still in the contest? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

EBU have not announced it yet so they must be still in --MSalmon (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The top of the article currently has Slovakia has withdrawn. The bottom half has Slovakia participating. doktorb _words^deeds 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like funny! That was mistake, or my mind said wrong! What's going on here? EBU confirmed again or not! ):-P 81.215.239.22 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

EBU did not confirmed a withdrawal for Slovakia, it was ESCToday that did it! /Hollac16 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well. Listed in the pot 6. They cannot withdrawn after all! And real question is who represents for Slovakia? 81.215.239.22 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Belarus rumours in Serbian Press

As this information is unconfirmed by any official source from Belarus, the participant rumoured in Serbian press should not be added to the table. Evilperson 20 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not rumors, but a statement by the song composer to the media so it's a completely legitimate source for Wikipedia. It would have been a rumor if the media wrote how their source is telling them about this or they've heard about it but when a person comes out and says I am a composer of the Belarusian entry for 2011 it's no longer a rumor. The source meets all Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements and if you are trying to remove it from the article without violating rules on blanking sourced information, you will need to provide a source that refutes the claim of the composer. --Avala (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You are citing an article that comes from a Serbian tabloid which is an unreliable source for the information it provides. This information needs to be confirmed on behalf of the broadcaster responsible for selecting the Belorussian participant in the Eurovision Song Contest. There are many instances were media foreign to the country in question report on false Eurovision-related information that is not confirmed and this is no different. Until there is an official statement that this is in fact true from the concerned parties, it can only be considered a rumour. I am not able to refute this source, however, as a tabloid can claim that Belarus is being represented by the President of the United States and this would in fact be untrue unless those parties were to confirm that information. Evilperson 20 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New Source

Hello! I received a source, which says Slovakia decided to compete in EscToday [6]. This source may help to contribute the article! Now rise again to 43! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

10/9, 9/10

Does anyone know why there are 10 countries in the first half of the first semi-final when there are only nine countries in the first half of the second semi-final? /Hollac16 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Because that is the way the draw came out as there are 19 countries in each semi final --MSalmon (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I know it is 19 in each semi-final, but why did they draw 10 countries in the first half of the first semi-final when they draw only nine countries in the first half of the second semi-final? That is my question /Hollac16 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. We can only discuss topics related to improving the article. Grk1011 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a forum question! It is a thought from me about why they did so. EBU must have an explanation for this and it should be written in the article. /Hollac16 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

19 is not evenly divisible by 2. The draw was done and each country assigned a half of the semi-final. Because of the nature of this process, one half had one more country than the other. This is a trivial fact that does not need an explanation in the article. Grk1011 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup Deadline

Hello! I see didn't source given in "Media reports regarding host city" section. Please add more source to help to improve. Template will be deleted after January 27. I'll announce when template is deleted! And refrain to revert template when already deleted! If you have a question, ask me. I'll reply your message! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)