Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Olli (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 13 May 2013 (→‎HD Simulcasts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov naming issue

Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov are entered in the contest as "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov" and not "Elitsa & Stoyan". Since this page covers the artists and songs in terms of the contest, the official name listed on eurovision.tv should be used. "Elitsa & Stoyan" is not even the name they were billed under when they entered the contest in 2007 (which is not relevant to this but just something to note). All other artist names and song titles reflect how they are appear in the table's source. Pickette (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise an issue regarding the naming choice for the Bulgarian representatives. Twice now Pickette has changed the name of the artists from what the majority of sources have them enlisted as ([1] and [2]) the edit summary for the second revert of the editor I find to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, especially after I had explained myself clearly in my own edit summary.
The main article for the duo is named as Elitsa & Stoyan, even Eurovision.tv have them majority listed by the same duo act name and not their individual names, as does ESCToday and also Eurovision.tv's Youtube page. However, Pickette seems to think because the participants profile on Eurovision.tv's page have then enlisted as "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov" that that take higher precedence over the majority of sources and despite the guidelines per WP:COMMONNAME. So to prevent any edit warring (which Pickette may not be aware that s/he may be on the verge of initiating here) I feel that opening up a discussion here, would be the most cooperative thing to do to find common ground and to achieve a mutual consensus. What are the views of everyone on how the duo's name should be presented as on this article? Wesley♦Mouse 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, even google search shows that Elitsa & Stoyan produces 340,000 results, whereas Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov only produces 120,000 results. Thus common name would appear to be the surname-less version rather than the version Pickette wishes to use. Wesley♦Mouse 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who came up with Elitsa & Stoyan but this duo never officially appears under that name. Even on the albums they have released together, their full names appear on the covers. In 2007, they appeared as Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov. The table source on this article references a page on eurovision.tv that lists the official artist and song title names as entered by the delegations. Are we going to override that with how the artist's names are mentioned in casually written articles by fansites? Their participant profile on the official contest website contains all of the official information regarding their participation so I'm not sure where the justification is that "Elitsa & Stoyan" should be used instead of that. Pickette (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter who came up with the name, what does matter is that guidelines are followed. I've already mentioned WP:COMMONNAME above. WP:NCM and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are two others that I can think of at hand. The latter of those guidelines state that "when the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." A chosen name to be used needs to have "Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; and Consistency". I have already provided evidence to prove that the duo appear to be more recognizable under the pseudonym "Elitsa & Stoyan" based on the google search results, and other English-language sources. If we were to change the name in the table itself to a different version, then we need to maintain consistency by changing it elsewhere include the navigation boxes and the duo's article page as well. But like I said, if Elitsa & Stoyan are more established and recognized than Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov, then who are we to argue over why they are being shown on one source alone using the latter version rather than the former. Pickette, let's see what other have to say on this, please. Wesley♦Mouse 03:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typing a name surname-less in a search engine would produce more searches for anyone. The hits "Elitsa & Stoyan" pick up are just highlights of their name attached to their surnames. Here is the 2007 album cover where their full names are listed [3], the official mp3 release of their 2013 entry from the official website with their full names used [4] and their album covers which feature their full names [5] [6] [7]. And also all of the official listings of their entered name in the contest on eurovision.tv. Pickette (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offence Pickette, but I have seen this scenario over naming issues many a time around here now, so I think I have gained a huge grasp on guidelines etc etc. If your version is the correct version based on what is shown via the participant profile of Eurovision.tv, then please explain why Eurovision.tv also use the name Elitsa & Stoyan on the video link, which is also on the very same profile page. So are we now saying that even the EBU have no competence and like to confuse people too? Like I've said twice now, let's see what others have to say on this matter so that we can build a consensus. Thanks! Wesley♦Mouse 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just making my case for why I think their names should be listed with surnames. Am I not allowed to do that? You listed your evidence and I'm also listing mine. Let the people decide with all of the facts from both sides. Should Bonnie Tyler go by Bonnie because the name Bonnie returns more google searches or because as an artist she appears under her full name on all of her releases like Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov? Birgit Õigemeel and Hannah Mancini have both officially entered the contest as Birgit and Hannah, respectively. That's how they are listed in the contest and I would think that a wikipedia page that is devoted to covering all of the facts regarding the contest would list artist names as they appear in the contest. Pickette (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention Bonnie Tyler or the other artists you mentioned? No! So please try and avoid putting words into my mouth that I never said. Eltisa & Stoyan are listed only the participant profile with their surnames included, but the EBU's video presentation don't use the surname. Plus there are naming conventions and guidelines on Wikipedia, of which I have kindly provided links for you to check for yourself, and those guidances advise that common names are more favoured in circumstances like this. Take Ell & Nikki for example, we didn't list them down using their surnames. Duos evolve their stage names over time, that would explain the difference in stage name used in 2007 and 2013. Although the EBU shown them on articles as Elitsa & Stoyan for their 2007 also - there is the consistency. Anyhow, I need to get some sleep, its just gone 4:30am, and I've to be up in 3 hours time. No rest for the hard working. Wesley♦Mouse 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you were talking about other artist names, I was just using them as an example. Elitsa & Stoyan never evolved into a stage name. They have always presented themselves as Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov just like I have provided you with years worth of their releases where not once do they bill themselves as Elitsa & Stoyan. And besides, what if the duo of Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov entered the contest under the name Bulgarian Drum Duo? Because Elitsa & Stoyan is supposedly a common name for them it would override how they are officially listed in the contest? (Again, not putting words in your mouth, simply another example) I think this article should stick with what's established and factual which is that Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov present themselves as a duo by their full names on all occasions and that the names of the artists are both fully and officially entered in the contest. The Elitsa & Stoyan wikipedia article should even be moved to reflect their more accurate duo name. Pickette (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the EBU listed them as Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov in 2007 as well: [8] [9] And I have listed the back cover of the 2007 compilation previously in this discussion where their full names are listed as well. Pickette (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're being combative instead of working towards consensus, Wesley. Seriously. Pickette has a point here. Just because you were in similar scenarios over naming issues in the past doesn't mean that your word means consensus. Google hits aren't concrete evidence either per WP:GNUM.
If you notice in most articles on ESCToday and Eurovision.tv, for example, "Elitsa & Stoyan" is only mentioned in that form either in the headline, where space needs to be conserved, or after their full names were mentioned, often multiple times. For example: [10] [11] [12] from Eurovision.tv, and [13] [14] [15] [16] from ESCToday. ESCToday, by the way, seems to call Elitsa by her first name alone often. Both these sites are also notably inconsistent with the naming. Nevertheless, most articles list them by their full names first.
Also, Elitsa and Stoyan are both notable individually. Why not link each name to their respective individual articles as with Esma & Lozano or Adrian Lulgjuraj & Bledar Sejko or Nodi Tatishvili & Sophie Gelovani? I also propose putting Birgit Õigemeel and Hannah Mancini's full names back in the article. What we need here is consistency and reliability. If outside sources are not consistent, then we should establish consensus on how to make things consistent on Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind Mr Gerbear that I did point out that it was 04:30 in the morning (UK time) when I writing my comments, so I was rather tired at that time. I wasn't being combative, just putting my points across just as Pickette was. If I came across in that manner, then I do apologise as that was not my intentions. Although most of the project members on here know me well enough by now to know that I don't mince my words and beat around the bush. I say things as is and bluntly, honesty is the best policy right!? Call a spade, a spade. Anyhow, back to the matter at hand. The point Mr Gerbear makes about "if outside sources are not consistent, then we should establish consensus on how to make things consistent on Wikipedia", that was the whole point I was trying to make from the start. Notable and reliable sources seem to use two different versions of the participants names, which can become confusing for anyone reading them. Which is why we as a cooperative team need to work together to find a resolution on who we as a team decide to list such names on our articles. Take Lena Mayer-Landrutt for example. The EBU listed her under her full name in 2010, only to list her in 2011 as simply "Lena". A prime example of the EBU (or most probably the artist herself) opting to go for a more conciseness (shortened) variation.
Also, it may be worth noting that WP:GNUM does not state that Google hits aren't concrete evidence in regards to how we would list a name. WP:GNUM states that Google hits (aka The Google Test) should not be used to determine notability for the article subject themselves. It also goes on to state that "there is nothing wrong with pointing others to these sources when trying to get others to improve an article or to save it when up for deletion, even within one's comment. This is actually a good idea if you are looking for others to help save an article. But the results alone are not grounds for protecting an article from deletion.". In this aspect we are not talking about the notability of this very article nor are we trying to save an article from deletion, we are discussing the recognizability of the participants names. Plus WP:GNUM has only been nominated as a proposed guideline/policy for Wikipedia, so its not exactly a rock-solid guide for now.
In response to why not link each name to their respective individual articles. This would be because Elitsa & Stoyan have done individual work as solo artists up to and including 2003, from which point they appear to have formed into a duo act and thus have an article under their duo act's name. A similar case would be that of Ant & Dec, they have an article as a double-act as that is how they are mostly known by, however they also have individual articles (Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly) to cover any solo projects they may have done. We already know that Elitsa & Stoyan are an established duo act, but what we need to work towards is an agreement of who they need to be enlisted as, in accordance to guidelines and recognizability. Once again, sincere apologies for any combative tones that may have come across in my previous comments that were made during the early hours of the morning. Wesley♦Mouse 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lena Meyer Landrut does not apply here as an example since the EBU have listed Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov by their full names on both occasions of their participation in the contest. All official sources regarding their careers and their participation in the contest list them by their full names. While the EBU have listed their names as Elitsa & Stoyan on the one youtube video you've cited which deviates from the use of their full names, on a subsequent and more recent video of their performance in the Netherlands, they used their official full names. [17] Also, Mr Gerbear is right about all of the articles on eurovision.tv. They refer to them as Elitsa & Stoyan only in the title and then use their full name in the body of the article. Pickette (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind Pickette, I would appreciate if we waited for input from others too. I've been accused of being combative in my tone, while you are being just as equally combative in yours towards everything that I have written in here as well as on other talk pages in the past too towards myself. We cannot explicitly state that someone is right or wrong, until everyone has been able to have their say on the matter and agreed upon a solution. Nor have I said that one version should be more accurate than the other, I am merely saying that we have conflicting evidence which shows both versions are just as correct as each other, and so we need to establish by mutual consensus which variation everyone would prefer to be used - and I mean everyone. Wesley♦Mouse 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm directly addressing the matter at hand here and not having a fight. We are supposed to discuss the issue, no? That is what I'm doing and I'm finding it hard to get all of my points across when you are allowed to provide a rebuttal to my point of view and the evidence I've presented, but in turn I have to wait for others to comment on the situation. And I address anything that it written to me or about me politely and thoroughly, I really have no interest in fighting with anyone especially people I don't even personally know. Pickette (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting RE:GNUM, I linked that because it's illogical to use Google hit numbers as an argument for pretty much anything that has to do with proving notability, which includes which name is more common. While it's not policy, the logic stands. Nonetheless, both of you have been rather combative in some ways, but that's not what we're here to discuss. We need consensus from the rest of the editors. If someone could go to other editors and ask them to leave a comment here, that would be great. Things to take into consideration: Are Elitsa and Stoyan an established duo with other things in their discography that aren't about them together in Eurovision? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think another issue here is how we should list the names of the contestants on this page. Should they follow what has been officially listed on the eurovision.tv website and how they appear in the contest and contest releases by the EBU, or should they take after the names of the articles on Wikipedia? There are many examples on this page that would need to be addressed if the Elitsa & Stoyan name is adopted, such as, Hannah Mancini, Birgit Õigemeel, Esma Redžepova and Vlatko Lozanoski, Gianluca Bezzina, Agathonas Iakovidis, Cezar Florin Ouatu, Nodiko Tatishvili and Sopho Gelovani and El Sueño de Morfeo. All of these names appear differently in the contest than in their respective Wikipedia article. Perhaps this doesn't apply in this discussion but I think it's something that should be discussed. Pickette (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Gerbear, I've left a note at WT:ESC in the hope that it gets more project members to engage in this slightly important debate. One can only but hope it works. On a different note though, I'm not overly fussed either way in regards to which name version is used, but it would be nice to find some sort of agreement within this project, as there are conflicting evidence in regards to the Bularian participants, and how they are named. For the sake of compromise, I don't mind opting for using "Elitsa Todorova & Stoyan Yankulov" (directing to Elista & Stoyan page), rather than "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov". The comma just seems out of place in my opinion. Wesley♦Mouse 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an article about the Eurovision Song Contest, they should be listed by the names that are actually used in the contest broadcasts; if they use other names in different contexts, that can be explained in a footnote (although in this particular case that doesn't seem necessary). Of course the broadcasts are still about four weeks in the future, so we won't know the exact form of names used until the second semifinal, but (at least in my opinion) that just means that it doesn't really matter very much which names are used in the article right now. 82.197.31.180 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article duo name Elitsa & Stoyan should stay. I think people here are making a big deal out of something that isnt really a big deal like what to write concerning this duos name at the ESC 2013 article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say leave the status quo as it is now, and then re-assess the situation after the contest is over. I'm not a fan of ampersands and they should only be used where there is a lack of space or in the case of group/organisation names, the latter applying here, per WP:& - however, I'm not a fan of using the comma in that way either. Currently I would say you can argue it either way, but the final determiner for this article should be the name used in the contest itself. CT Cooper · talk 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is very interesting to me, as I wondered myself a while ago about this issue. I didn't want to open this as I'm not so active here and saw there were discussions about this with "Ell & Niki". I still look at the project page sometimes, so when I saw the message for participants, I was glad to read the above to understand better myself and tell my opinion.
So first, I agree with CT Cooper that the simple thing is to wait for the contest, look how their names are written on the screen while they go on stage, as their official presentation at ESC 2013, which is what this article is about.
With that, after reading and learning about the varied arguments above, fpr now I totally support introducing their individual full-names. There are clear and enough examples that Pickette has given of their full names on internet/CD'S/their EBU's page. Also, we should remeber that even EBU provides News-articles with creativity, so it's natural that some titles will introduce "Elitsa and Stoyan" as more catchy rather than official; And still, their official EBU page is with their full names. On the other they did perform a lot together from 2003; Still, there is no clarity of stating themselves under a group name. Also the discussion about the value of google-search results in favour of "Elitsa and Stoyan" look as proven by all sides here as problematic and with contradictions in regards to their function and trust within the guidelines. Eventually, for me their official page and CD's are the reliable ones as formal and more accurate - just like this Encyclopedic article should be. Furthermore, this way the readers get more information here by learning their full names rather than private/semi names alone. Also and mostly, it cancells an option of falsely introduce singers with only semi-names under false groups - while other singers get to be introduced by their full names.
The general discussion here also reflects another thing I agree with Pickette about: Questioning the need for articles about ESC groups for singers that performed together and have their own articles on Wikipedia (which include their mutual ESC-performance-info) but don't have clear statements of performing under a group name.
About comma or "&/and", I myself prefer each singer name in a new row, in case of 2 or more names, without comma or "&". But since it's not acceptable here as I understand, I prefer the comma rather "&". That's because I see the comma as clarification for 2 or more seperated individual singers rather than the use of "&/and". Just my input on this as well.
Thanks for the above discussion that helped me understand some things as well. :) אומנות (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent to whether an ampersand or a comma is used but if people are supporting the use of the name as it will appear in the contest, then we should use the table source from eurovision.tv which has all of the official names of the artists and songs listed there. I've been applying those names to this article for a while now and there are many artist names which deviate from how they appear on their respective Wikipedia articles. If the names change on screen during the airing of the contest, then I would without a doubt support their change in this article but in my opinion we should stick to what we know and what is listed on the official contest website. Pickette (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper advised to leave things (status quo) as they are for now and wait until after the contest is over. So I'm inclined to go off that advice, especially as CT Cooper has been a member of this project for a very long time. And I am glad that someone has brought up the topic of ampersands "&", I was meaning to bring it up myself a couple of weeks ago. I was always under the impression they were not to be used, and should be replaced with the word "and" instead. As for the comma, it would be grammatically incorrect to use in such context as "Elitsa Todorova, Stoyan Yankulov", as it would make it imply that there is missing information that should follow the details - for example "Here, there, and everywhere". Notice how the comma separates word in a sentence but always uses the word "and" to separate the final word. In this case it would be grammatically correct to detail the duo as "Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov" without the use of the comma. Anyhow, as Cooper, IP82.197.31.180, and אומנות all stated, let's wait until the broadcasts have happened and see how the names are presented. After all it is only 2 weeks away - what harm is that to anyone? Wesley♦Mouse 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They similarly advised to have names appear in the article in terms of the contest. At this moment, the table source and the contest website listings do not support the name "Elitsa & Stoyan", which is the same source for all of the artist and song information in the table. To my understanding, it would be better to list their full names now and then swap to "Elitsa & Stoyan" should that name actually be the one in use during the broadcast. Also I think it would be best to find an official contest source for the name "Elitsa & Stoyan" and add it to the article if the table source is ignored. Pickette (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a little bit of research on this matter and come across some interesting finds from a variety of official and/or reliable websites. The sites are as follows along with how they are enlisting the Bulgarian duo.
That sounds good to me and if they indeed use the surname-less names on the broadcast or if it happens to change on the official website at any point, I'd support that use without question. Pickette (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should assume that the EBU made a grammatical typing error when they used the comma on their listing, "and" or "&" does seem more commonsensical. And as we're on the "&" subject, maybe it is better to change the & to and on the other parts of the participant tables too. Wesley♦Mouse 00:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, eventually I'm also up for writting their full names for now, especially from thinking about preventing falsely introducing semi-names also for the meantime, until the broadcast will show their names introduction. Regarding the comma, in a body of a regular text-format the "and" indeed comes before the last detail in a list. But just for interest, on the Eurovision-EBU website, their names are wrriten with a comma both on the title of "singers" at Bulgaria's official song's page and on the 2nd-semi table page. Therefore I don't think it's an error when it comes to titles and table introduction or at least unintentional typo-error on EBU's part. However I understand that "and" can prevent any confussion of missing info so it's probably best. So I'm also glad that for now there is the compromise of showing their full names on the article. If others will still feel strongly, maybe it's good to also consider in the future introducing official groups and band's singers names/full-names on footnotes at the end of the articles. I myself am indifferent for names-footnotes if there is a clear-official group name. אומנות (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've reached a mutual compromise then, and I've been bold and implemented what has been compromised (well I did it during the early hours of the morning, as I was suffering with insomnia). Pheeewww, this has been a lengthy discussion ain't it!? Thank you to everyone who has participated, and happy editing! Wesley♦Mouse 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion actually points out 2 more related aspects for future consideration when this article will keep being developed, following discussing EBU's website official-pages as an important source to follow: Final and Semi-Final tables as well as individual participants profiles (also compared to more free-written news-articles on this same website). 1: capitalized letters for all word's of non-English titles. 2: Additional writting of latin letters to all titles that contain foreign letters.
1: ESC official website pages introduce non-English titles with capitalization for all their words. This article capitalizing only the letter of the first word in non-English titles, while capitalizing all words of English titles and also all words of Cyprus Greek-letters title on the other hand. Examples from EBU's-ESC website, Estonia and Spain on the general table's and their participant profile pages: here+here and here+ here - "Et Uus Saaks Alguse" (not "Et uus saaks alguse"); "Contigo Hasta El Final" (not "Contigo hasta el final). Even concerning reference words (as "El" in Spanish) it introduces capitalization.
2: This article contains titles with Latin-letters alongside brackets with non-Latin lettered titles, so English readers know how to pronounce the original foreign ones. However, some don't have in accordance to EBU's website: Even on it's English lyrics pages of Croatia and Iceland participant's profiles it introduces only local letters-titles that aren't used in English or that have different pronounciation than in English. Croatia: "Mižerja" - should be added "Mijeria" title to explain the reading of the letter "ž". Iceland - "Ég á líf" is also different from English reading. Montenegro is an opposite case as EBU's website introduces only the Latin "Igranka" even on it's Montenegrin-lyrics page. And again on the other hand Cyprus example with both Latin and Greek writting here and on EBU's page of it's Greek lyrics.
Eventually, I think that for the 1st aspect there is clarity and unity on EBU's-ESC website, so this article should follow it with capitalizing other languages titles-words. For the 2nd aspect not follow EBU's website as it seems inconsistent, therefore providing additional English-Latin titles for all foreign ones on this article (Croatia, Iceland and local-Montenegrin letters for Montenegro's Latin title), as it benefits the English-speaking reader and maintains unity at this article. As been said somewhere above, the article should keep unity and consistency in accordance to follow consistency on official sources, but if those aren't consistent, then independently-adding details here is prefered for maintaining unity and clarity. Just something more to think to improve or think about. אומנות (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1: Regarding your first point: Yes that is what the EBU have done, but Wikipedia has its own rules about songs and capitalisation, so that's not going to change.
2: The brackets show the song in it's native scripts for non-Latin alphabets like Greek, and Cyrillic, its not used to help pronunciation, "Mižerja", "Ég á líf" all use the Latin sript. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since I saw that the English written-EBU website capitalizing all titles-words in all languages, it doesn't seemed as something set in stone at English and therefore at Wikipedia that can't be changed. There is also Cyprus that I mentioned with it's Greek title that all it's words are capitalized here, compared to others like Serbia's both latin and Serbian titles with only their first words capitalized. For the 2nd point, then it will be very helpful to use the Latin script as English-pronounciation for all titles with letters that are spoken differently than in English, as that's the whole point that I see in this as benefitial to the English-speaking-reader on English-Wikipedia, and not readers-speakers of General-Latin-languages Wikipedia. But of-ocurse I understand now from your explanation about the current rules for uses that are being followed, still this can be decided to changed to improve. Thanks for your quick reply and for your adding at the article the Montenegrin-script of the word "Igranka" as anothr thing I adressed. אומנות (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted out the Cypriot song. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good. אומנות (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nrk have already announced their plans for next year`s selection

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/melodi_grand_prix/1.11002774 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy O'Connor as San Marino commentator

I've removed this information in the commentator section of the article, however an unregistered user has added it back and believes I'm making a mistake by removing it. I've checked the source and I can't find anything to indicate that John Kennedy O'Connor will provide commentary for an online broadcast of the contest by the broadcaster from San Marino. The current source leads to a video where John Kennedy O'Connor speaks about his appointment as the spokesperson for San Marino, but nothing about providing commentary. The source just details that he will be providing reviews of all of the songs online, rather than providing actual broadcast commentary. I've noticed this is also listed on the 2012 contest page, however, there is also no source for that. Perhaps someone can look into this? Pickette (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The translated source says: "His comments as well as videos on the web, are broadcast from Monday to Saturday at 8.00 am and at 13.30 on Digital Terrestrial and at 8.00, 13.30 and 23:50 on the satellite channel." The TV guide shows that they started this week.[18] Thus ruling out a live commentary of the contest a week before it begins. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pickette is correct about the 2012 Contest article, as it would appear that John Kennedy O'Connor has been added months after the article gained GA status. And most of us will be aware that all references get checked thoroughly by the GA reviewer for accuracy and reliability, before the GA is passed. So I would agree that any mention of Mr Kennedy O'Connor needs to be removed from ESC2012 page. As for this very article, I have found another news article that states he will be the voting spokesperson, although it is unclear as to whether he will also be commentator or just commentating for a presentation show that previews all the songs prior to the contest itself. Wesley♦Mouse 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I'm reading as well. I've actually removed this information from the 2013 article twice now and the first time it had a source that led to a video interview where John Kennedy O'Connor discusses his selection as the voting spokesperson for San Marino and now it has a source that just details that he will provide reviews of all of he entries in some kind of daily preview type program that precedes the contest. Pickette (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today I removed this information for the third time and added in my edit summary that there was a discussion occurring on this talk page. The unregistered user, who is seemingly using different IP addresses, has restored this information again. I'm not sure what to do in this case since the IP user chose to revert my edit rather than come to this discussion, so perhaps someone with more experience can deal with this matter. Pickette (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the information, and asked the IP to come here and discuss. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit:] I've just realised the news articles are available in English. Still nothing on J O'C commenting, and that only Lia Fiorio and Gigi Restivo are. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry Pickette, the article has now been semi-protected which expires on 23 May at 23:45 (UTC). So the IP or any IP won't be able to edit this now. I was quite shocked to see the IP accuse you of 3RR, when in fact they had exceeded 4RR, so they should be blocked anyway. Wesley♦Mouse 00:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit:] Pickette, you may need to check if you're an "autoconfirmed user", as the semi-protection may affect your ability to edit this article too. To check your status, click on the "preference" tab at the top of the page, and it should tell you on there. Wesley♦Mouse 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<restored comment> I'm sorry, but it was bad enough that wikipedia declared me dead, but I'm not prepared to tolerate this "talk" argument being raged publicly in my name and I would appreciate the person who started it deleting it immediately. If anyone wants to know anything about my professional career and my involvement with SMRTV and Eurovision, they can email me privately and I'll happily answer. You can also find me on twitter. This is not the forum I wish to have my professional engagements debated. Please remove. TheRealJKO (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC) </restored comment>[reply]
I've restored the above, it's hard to show emotion in text, especially with this 'argument' we are having. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 11:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a related issue TheRealJKO (talk · contribs) removed this entire talk page section, after claiming to actually be O'Connor. I have since warned this user and restored the text. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disturbed with all this and the accusations being cast by a user that we are engaging in an "insulting debate". There is nothing that has been said against a living person here, all that has been discussed is the sources being used to prove what is reliable and for verifiability so that we can keep this article 100% accurate as possible; something to which the user has accused Wikipedia for being "inaccurate". Is it not best that editors hold a peaceful debate regarding sources to make sure that we are producing accurate details within our articles, especially when it comes to living persons? I'm pretty sure that any living person would be more upset if we were to say they were a commentator for a live broadcast, when in actual fact they were not. Wesley♦Mouse 12:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I shall now pursue this matter through the proper channels. TheRealJKO (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that I intend to continue to comment in this discussion (per legal threat made here). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account (TVArchivistUK) because the IP address used to add similar information to the 2012 contest article has since been blocked for sockpuppetry of this account. The tone this user employs in discussions is very similar to all of exchanges this user has had and is currently having with this account and their other unregistered IP accounts. Here is the edit from the 2012 page. Pickette (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The final straw. The final abuse. The final threat. I have posted 2 things on wikipedia. One to deny that I was dead and 1 to request this pointless argument was removed. That's it. Make as many accusations and aspersions as you like. This matter is now in the proper hands and your last comment has certainly made for defammation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All we want is a reliable source for additions relating to this, that's all, until then, we cannot have the information in the article. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're making this way bigger than it should be. You weren't made to be "dead" in that first edit, all there was was an error in the tense of the verb. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps the article should mention that there is opening acts for the first time since moscow

i mean in the semi finals of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that will get included into the article nearer the time (or shortly after each semi final), as we would know more about them and be able to write a informative prose. Wesley♦Mouse 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout

Is it me, or is the layout on the format section all higgledy-piggledy, compared to the layout for the same section on ESC2012? On the 2012 article there was no separate header for voting (per GA reviewer advice), the layout then went onto semi-allocation draw, graphic design, and finally national host broadcaster. On this article we've seem to have given voting its own header, followed by headers for 'host', 'other segments', 'graphic design', 'ticket sales', 'sponsors', 'semi-final allocation draw', and ending with 'running order'. The "other segments" header may do with being worded more informatively, although I am struggling to think of something more appropriate. What I'd like to suggest is the restructure this entire format section so that it flows better. Any suggestions on how we can do this? Or would everyone be OK if I was to be bold and just go ahead and fix it based on how the 2012 article looks? Wesley♦Mouse 11:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been bold and done a layout test in one of my sandboxes for people to view, and see the tweaking I've done to the format section. If it looks like a major improvement, then feel free to use it into the article. Wesley♦Mouse 12:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been thinking the same thing and I prefer the version you have made in your sandbox. Pickette (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've gone ahead and implemented the improved layout. If anyone disagrees, then feel free to revert the edit. Wesley♦Mouse 13:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 May 2013

good afternoon. I'ld like to add Eric Saade to ESC's presenters, since he gonna be one of them, not so important as Petra but he'll interview the singers at green room.

sincerely, 2.83.126.250 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done - This information is in the article in the Format section. If you're asking to add that information to the infobox, I think that's a bit misleading and places undue weight on his part in the presentation. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To further enhance what ElHef has stated, Eric Saade's appearance in the green room would only been seen via broadcaster that do not have commercial breaks, such as the BBC. So his insertion into the infobox would be partially inadequate as not every national broadcaster would broadcast Eric's green room section. So therefore Petra is a solo presenter. Wesley♦Mouse 23:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD Simulcasts

Something which has cropped up, is that many broadcasters have HD simulcasts, and HD channels, e.g. BBC One and BBC One HD, SVT1 and SVT1 HD etc are simulcasts. What I'm saying is they are basically the same, but should they be included? I personally am on the no side, which would make the section longer, however stand alone channels like Rai HD, TVE HD, and Yle HD etc I'm happy for them to be included due to their standalone status. Any thoughts? --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be easier to add something into the prose to state that some national broadcaster also provided a HD simulcast. That way we don't have to list every HD channel, and just stick to the basics. Less is more after all. Wesley♦Mouse 17:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wesley Mouse's suggestion. A little offtopic: YLE HD is also simulcast :) --Olli (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct information about commentators of Ukraine

Those, who have rights to edit this article, please make a small correction in gap "Commentators". Inter TV channel will not broadcast Eurovision Song contest in Ukraine. (Corresponding statement (English Google translation) of EBU member NTU was released on May 8.Qcumber95 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the information on the article based on the source you provided. Pickette (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spokespersons

Why did almost the entire list of spokespersons of every single country got removed? It was confirmed by relieable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last time I looked, the list was littered with unsourced information. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the entire list as there were no sources for them whatsoever to provide reliable verifiability, as this diff clarifies that no sources where present. Wesley♦Mouse 21:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I'm rather dubious about this website being used to source a full list of spokespersons that Eurofan2005 (talk · contribs) has used to this article. The website has never been used before, although I am always welcoming the usage of new sources. But it does look very much like a forum-based website. Anyone know more about this website, and if they are reliable enough to be trusted as a new source? Wesley♦Mouse 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this website but I found a website (ESC Daily) with this article. Some countries have the same spokesperson with last year (Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Serbia). Eurofan2005 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are the list of names identical on both websites? If so, then that would add more weight to trustworthiness for escchat.com. Wesley♦Mouse 23:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they are trustworthy enough. ESCXtra and EuroVoix are both showing the same list of names as ESCDaily and EscChat, with only Israel yet to announce their spokesperson. Also the news sources are reporting that only Belgium, France, and Switzerland will be announcing their votes in French, while the remaining 36 countries will be using English. Not sure if that would be too trivial of data to include into the article though. Wesley♦Mouse 23:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2013&oldid=554882522"