Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2021/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2021 already

It's 2020 do we really need a page for next year when most of the information is not available yet plus doesn't this meet WP:CBALL. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, but I don't have the energy for this discussion year after year. Grk1011 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally believe it is to early for now until there is more information Sammyham84 (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine

Should Ukraine be treated as a returning country? If so, we should add that to the infobox. --Semsurî (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes it should since it did not participate in the last contest. Just like with the number of entries, though, we should probably wait for the official list being announced in ~November before we fill the field to avoid unnecessary warring over it. IceWelder [✉] 17:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please fix Norway or tell me how to

When I added Norway and published the changes I went to the name section and clicked the little button and when I did Norway was moved by Georgia and now I don't know how to fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolef1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sweden

I can't find anything in the source given for Sweden that confirms Sweden will definitely participate in Eurovision 2021. Bjorkman says he's sad for The Mamas but there's no mention of Melodifestivalen 2021 or Sweden's participation in Eurovision 2021. Am I missing something? DivingSpicy (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

DivingSpicy, you are right, the source did not include this information. I removed the statement for now. IceWelder [✉] 09:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Please allow me to edit the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 page. It will seriously mean a lot for me. I’m not new at editing pages. For example I created Melani Garcia’s page on Russian Wikipedia. There are a lot of news every day, but the page updating not so well. I wanna help editors with it. Theeurovisionworld (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

) Theeurovisionworld (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently protected from editing by new (and unregistered) users due to repeated vandalism. Only admins can lift this restriction, but I doubt that this will or should happen soon. If you need specific edits to be made, please create a "Semi-protected edit request" to request them. The template should not be used to ask for privileges. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision 2020 Cancelled

With 2020 cancelled and the EBU stating "the EBU, together with the Host Broadcaster NPO, NOS, AVROTROS and the City of Rotterdam will continue to talk to see if it's possible to stage the Eurovision Song Contest in Rotterdam in 2021", it is sufficient information to suggest the contest is returning in 2021 and the Host City is still unconfirmed. This is a similar scenario to what happens immediately after someone wins the contest. We know the contest is back next year but we don't yet know the venue or host city officially. DaleYorks (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It is confirmed that 2021 is being planned but everything else about the page is speculation. The provisional list states that six countries have confirmed the participation intent. However, they only stated that events that were also used as national selections are planned to take place. This is original research. Furthermore, the reference group is discussing whether all artists planned for this year can perform next year instead.[1] If this is a possibility, why do we only have a table of six? Again, original research and speculation. The "other countries" section works off a list of countries that will not participate this year. No source, no reason, just original research. If we know nothing about this contest other than that it will be a contest, it is not yet article-worthy per WP:TOOSOON & co. We should wait for official statements by the EBU on how the 2021 contest will proceed before we do anything else. IceWelder [✉] 14:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this page is completely unnecessary. We can just change the 2020 page into a 2021 page, since it is the same Contest in the same host city with largely the same participants. In statements they say the 2020 Contest is cancelled, but in practice it is just postponed. So we can adjust the 2020 page to whatever is different for 2021, because most things will stay the same. The Contest will still be the result of the Netherlands' 2019 win, the host city selection procedure is the one we have had, so far there is no indication that the list of participating countries is going to be different, consequently it is possible that the semi-finals will keep the same division, so there is absolutely no need to have two pages with largely the same information. Of course not everything is known yet, but the status quo is what we know for the 2020 Contest. The 2021 Contest is not one that starts from scratch, it's a continuation of the 2020 Contest. So all the information for the 2020 Contest is valid for the 2021 Contest until we hear otherwise. So better just remove this page and adjust the 2021 page. Hhl95 19 March 2020, 03:54 (UTC+1) —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We still know too little about what the next contest is supposed to be. Many might he the same, but a lot of things could be different. The list of participants is already changing, and if the current rules persist, none of the songs will be the same. This would already makes the old list worth preserving. We could use the 2020 page for all preparations that happened before the cancellation, and this one for everything thereafter. Remember that there are still 14 months to go, so there is lots of planning ahead. IceWelder [✉] 06:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a unique and unprecedented situation for sure however based on what is happening this early on we can't simply move the 2020 page to 2021 even if the contest is held in Rotterdam and AVROTROS, NPO and NOS are the host broadcasters. Even if it held in the Netherlands the host broadcasters may opt for a new theme and visual identity for the 2021 contest. For one it will have a different Executive Supervisor, second some countries (like IceWelder mentioned) are not guaranteeing 2020 participants the right to represent their countries in 2021. Estonia is only giving their 2020 representative a pass to the final of their national selection process while Sweden will go full steam ahead with Melodifestivalen. If The Mamas want to represent Sweden in 2021 they have to go through the entire process again. Third the Reference Group has to make a decision about possibly allowing the 2020 songs to be eligible for the 2021 contest. Fourth, we don't even know what the EBU will do with the two non-participating countries like Canada and United States who secured the rights to the 2020 contest. It is entirely possible the EBU may extend those agreements to cover the 2021 contest or allow Omni/Netflix to get any fees they paid back to broadcast the 2020 contest. So there are still a lot of variables and unanswered questions right now impacting a lot of countries both participating and non-participating alike. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As I say that the now-cancelled 2020 edition was the 65th, the 2021 will be the 66th because of ordinal numbers. For example, the 1st edition took place in 1956, and the 2nd the following year in 1957. Does make it proof to meet with the standards of WP:NUMBER? ApprenticeFan work 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on how the organizer handles the event. According to the Dutch Eurovision page (via Google Translate) they talk about the "most logical scenario for the EBU, as well as for NPO / NOS / AVROTROS, and for the Municipality of Rotterdam if the 65th Eurovision Song Contest takes place in the Netherlands at another time." So in this case the EBU may consider the 2021 contest the 65th contest for now we just have to play a waiting game and leave the article as is for now. Considering right now we have at least one official source using the method we are currently using.[2] Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I was going to bring in that argument yeah. It's still supposed to be the 65th edition. So it should be all in one page. If that bothers anyone, maybe we should rename all the pages after their edition rather than their year. I understand that many things are still insecure. But since it is the same edition, I think we have to treat the 2020 cancelled Contest as the status quo, rather than treat the 2021 Contest as one that starts from scratch. So far we have no signals that visuals, host country, host city, host broadcasters, list of participant countries and presenters are going to change, so my opinion is that we have maintain this information until something changes. And the best way to do that is to continue with the 2020 page and turn it into a 2021 page. That is much easier. And maybe instead we can create a new page for the cancelled Contest including the songs that were intended for it. Hhl95 23 March 2020, 01:10 (UTC+1) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The list of acts is already changing and we are yet in the unclear what else might change. We also do not need one super-sized article with information spanning 24 months of preparations. The 2020 contest article should be preserved with the developments towards what was planned for that contest. Elements that are carried over to this contest can still be explained as carryovers here. The only reason that this will be the 65th edition is only because the one in 2020 was cancelled. They are not the same contest for having the same ordinal. The best we can do right now is wait until most issues are settled. If the contest turns out to be exactly the same as the 2020 contest with the exception of participating songs, we can revisit the issue. IceWelder [✉] 09:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Latvia and Malta confirmed

With the same artirts I mention https://ogaegreece.com/archives/79122 --JeanisDL (talk), 22 March 2020, 00:35 (UTC)

Their source for Latvia is a tweet Samanta Tina made saying "Samanta [Quarantina] is coming" with the #eurovision2021 hashtag. For Malta, they make an unsourced claim that Destiny's manager has confirmed it. In both instances, neither the artist not the broadcaster has explicitly confirmed this, nor has local media reported on it. Both claims seem unsubstantiated at this point. DivingSpicy (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Why isn't romania mentioned at all? ROXEN has been chosen for 2021 by TVR, i dont understand how this doesnt mean they are *interested* in participating in 2021 Benclucas (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, neither the artist nor the broadcaster has given a definite stement on their participation. Roxen has stated the she would be interested in returning but has no further info. Source [3] IceWelder [✉] 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Benclucas (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bulgaria and Ukrainian return to Eurovision in infobox

next year there will be a return to the Eurovision Song Contest of Bulgaria and Ukraine (and it's official) Can their names be entered in the return section in the infobox? --Michele1999 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As discussed before, we can do so once the EBU announces the full list of countries in ~November. IceWelder [✉] 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Change "after the country won the 2019 edition" to "after the country's victory in the 2019 edition". If possible, add "in Tel Aviv, Israel, with the song "Arcade" performed by Duncan Laurence." 58.186.52.96 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The place where they won or who won for the country is not relevant in the first sentence. What is important is that the country won and therefore are allowed to host. The proposed wording is also a run-on sentence best avoided. IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

France confirmed

France Télévisions has confirmed that a new national selection process will be used next year, instead of an internal selection or "Destination Eurovision", shouldn't this be enough to count as a confirmation or is a clear statement necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightOfGnomes (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

On Albania's participation: it is not yet confirmed (as of July 2nd)

Despite what some Eurovision news outlets have reported, broadcaster Radio Televizioni Shqiptar have not confirmed their participation in the 2021 Eurovision Song Contest nor that the 59th Festivali i Këngës will be used as the national selection. This misconception appears to stem from a Wiwibloggs piece published yesterday, taking a RTSH news article[1] that only explained that the first organizational meetings for Festivali i Këngës had kicked off — there was no mention of the Eurovision Song Contest whatsoever. This Wiwibloggs piece[2] has since been amended to make clear that we do not know anything about the country's Eurovision participation.

Some other websites instead linked an article from Albanian news outlet Zëri[3] that simply reported the same information as the original RTSH article. However, Zëri added a last paragraph mentioning the fact that Festivali i Këngës has been continuedly used as a national final since 2004. It appears as though such websites mistook this paragraph as a confirmation that the organizational meetings confirm the Eurovision purpose but ultimately at this early stage those are only unfounded assumptions.

Lastly, yesterday (Wednesday, July 1st) the evening news broadcast on RTSH1 had a small segment about Festivali i Këngës[4] and the Eurovision Song Contest was mentioned, explaining that the Albanian delegation is yet to hold a discussion about the future of their 2021 participation and the continuity of Arilena Ara.

[1] https://www.rtsh.al/lajme/nisin-pergatitjet-per-festivalin-e-59-te-kenges-ne-rtsh/

[2] https://wiwibloggs.com/2020/07/01/albania-rtsh-confirms-festivali-i-kenges-59/255707

[3] https://zeri.info/kultura/355571/pavaresisht-situates-rtsh-nis-pergatitjet-per-festivalin-e-59-te/

[4] https://twitter.com/IgliLime/status/1278433632378634250?s=19 TaylorSnail (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Albania is confirmed for Eurovision 2021 Eurovision1323 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide a reliable source.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the United Kingdom despite Brexit...

Hi there! I'm wondering right now if United Kingdom also would like to participate the Eurovision Song Contest in Rotterdam next year despite Brexit, so if you've got time please reply to us. Thank you! ;) --2A00:801:440:351A:74F6:F2A4:2261:E401 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the Eurovision Song Contest is organised by the European Broadcasting Union, which is an organisation of public broadcasters that isn't associated with the European Union. Plenty of non-EU countries participate in the contest, and I haven't seen any information from a reliable source that says the BBC's participation for the UK would be affected by Brexit.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is Jordan?

Jordan is supposed to be in the countries list because The JRTV website announced they might go next year or in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovision1323 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eurovision1323: can you please directly link to the web page?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a source and a valid citation for this claim, we can include it. At the moment, there is no evidence that we can find, or you have provided. doktorb _words^deeds 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision 2021 moldova

Natalia Gordienco ( i don't know how to spell her surname) is not yet comfirmed for 2021.i checked eurovision.tv and nothing was told about Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.212.221.182 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

eurovision.tv is neither the only reliable source, nor is it perfect – it may simply not be updated, or TRM may not have submitted their artist to the EBU. Natalia Gordienko's participation has been confirmed by other sources deemed reliable, such as ESCToday.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Look here are proofs (https://eurovision.tv/event/rotterdam-2021/participants) (https://eurovisionworld.com/eurovision/2021/event)

My previous comment explains why that is not proof. Regardless, noticing that eurovision.tv doesn't list Natalia Gordienko and therefore assuming that she won't participate is extrapolation, and violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So if Moldova is comfirmed, then why isn't coloured in green in participation map

Thanks for pointing the error out! Moldova is green now.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Eurovision 2021 Portugal

I yesterday heard rumours that Portugal will participate in ESC 2021 whith the artist and song selected by Festival da Canção.

Do you have a source for this? (Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~.) JochemvanHees (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No but i heard from my friend in Portugal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.46.99 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Add the number of Participants

Please add the number of participants above the participation map like it is there on the Wiki pages of previous Eurovisions.

example: Number of Participants (so far) xx Eliasdert939 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this has been discussed at length on the Junior Eurovision 2020 talk page, and the consensus is that we should wait for the EBU to publish the final list of participating countries before the number of participants is added to the infobox.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential Debut of Lebanon if Israel deal is signed. Minister of Industrialists intrerested in a debut

Minister of Industralists interested in Lebanese debut in Eurovision according to this source. Is it possible this could be added on the list? https://eurovisionfun.com/en/2020/08/lebanon-countrys-president-of-the-industrialists-would-like-to-see-their-eurovision-debut/ Sadiemydog3 (talk)Sadiemydog3~~ Sadiemydog3 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Good find. I'm not sure if eurovisionfun.com is considered a credible source, but it seems to statisfy WP:NEWSORG. I'll see if someone else has something to say, otherwise I believe that this information should be added to the "Other countries" section. JochemvanHees (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this information is definitely relevant and the source seems as reliable as any of the other secondary sources we often use.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly feel the ref would qualify as a reliable news source compared to other Eurovision websites cited, however I'm not sure if the information contained within it is all that relevant and might fall under WP:SPECULATION. It appears to simply be a lone voice within an apparent Lebanese non-governmental organisation giving his opinion of the situation, and someone would have no say in the actual participation in Lebanon at the contest, such as someone in the Lebanese broadcaster or the Lebanese government. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadiemydog3 JochemvanHees Dummelaksen Sims2aholic8 In cases like this, I always search for the quote or something substantial from the quote, to see if any other sources carry it word-for-word. If the quote is genuine, and the source credible, then the quote should appear on other sites through a Google search, and if so, then it passes my Wikipedia Citation Test. (This is a personal test, mind, but it's a good rule of thumb.) One site, especially one we don't know, perhaps does fall foul of CITE and SPECULATION. So if we can find the same quote elsewhere, we've got stronger reasons to post. doktorb _words^deeds 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please update the map (28 September 2020)

Could you please add Albania and Russia as purple on the map as they both have confirmed their participation for 2021, thank you. Marnold99 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Belarus Eurovision 2021

Can you add Belarus on a participation list and map because they are selecting a new artist. Here is a proof https://eurovisionworld.com/esc/belarus-to-pick-a-new-representative-for-eurovision-2021 . Please edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.46.76 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: eurovisionworld.com is not viewed as a reliable source, and it uses Wikipedia as a source sometimes. No other source says that Belarus will participate, they only say that VAL will not participate in 2021.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we include Poland in the provisional list of participating countries?

Poland has been repeatedly added and removed now. I personally believe Poland should be in the list, because the source explicitly states that the broadcaster will take part in the competition. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Poland should be included. Dziennik Eurowizyjny is a trusted secondary source, and users who have been removing Poland have not given any explanations backed up by sources.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Iceland Eurovision 2021

Shouldn't Iceland be green because they said that their artist from last year will represent them again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlyshirley92 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Denmark

They have announced the date for the final. https://eurovoix.com/2020/10/29/denmark-dansk-melodi-grand-prix-final-to-be-held-on-6th-march-2021/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovision1323 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbia 2021

Can you make on map serbia green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.19.213 (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tsagrinou or Tsakgrinou?

Good luck figuring out which name we're meant to use... The CyBC announcement, her Instagram username, her IMDB and occasionally her Facebook, along with the Wiwibloggs article used as a source, uses Tsagrinou. Her Spotify, her Instagram handle, her Youtube account and her Facebook account (primarily) use Tsagkrinou. Which of these takes precedence? Toffeenix (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems like she's participating as Elena Tsagrinou: eurovision.tv  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

cyprus, serbia & ireland map

please change cyprus, serbia and ireland to green on the map.Eurovision1323 (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The above comment has been edited by two IP users. Are those you, Eurovision1323? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Logo copyright problems?

Been tracking the page for a while and I've been seeing the ESC21 "vectorized" header logo continuously being striked down because of copyright violations - which also affects this page in other languages. Anyone with a solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.113.121.6 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Similar to years past, it should be uploaded to Wikipedia as a fair use image. Copyrighted images cannot be on Commons and that's why it keeps getting deleted there. Grk1011 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So should we directly contact the EBU for permission to put the logo in, or is there another solution? Yes I'm aware that the logo for each of the previous ESCs' pages are there no problem, but I just find it odd that 2021's being tussed over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.113.120.64 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The difference is that this year's logo keeps being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia. It needs to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia where we allow fair use image licenses. If I have time, I'll try to upload it. Grk1011 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

AUSTRIA 2021

Vincent Bueno's song will be selected on March 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.81.48 (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@92.37.81.48: Can you provide a reliable source?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 10:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

He has stated "Ich glaube im März," which translates to "I believe in March." Every fansite ran with that and is reporting it as "will be released in March." It is by far a definitive confirmation and should not be included on the article until ORF states something. JKOkay (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-final table split

@009988aaabbbccc: Have you read WP:DTT? The original table format makes reading the table with a screenreader much harder, which is why I changed the table. Please show some consideration for my efforts even if you disagree with them.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also of note, if you try to sort the table, it randomly places the semi-final rows, so each sort click gives you a different result. Policy and usability would support them being separate. Grk1011 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Natalia Gordienko Confirmation

Natalia Gordienko has been confirmed as the moldavian representative ever since july 15th 2020 https://eurovoix.com/2020/07/15/moldova-natalia-gordienko-states-shes-been-selected-for-eurovision-2021/euro1234 (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eurovision1323: She's not responsible for organising Moldova's participation. Artists have made mistakes with announcements many times in Eurovision. This source from Eurovoix makes it clear that her statement doesn't confirm anything.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You said back in August "eurovision.tv is neither the only reliable source, nor is it perfect – it may simply not be updated, or TRM may not have submitted their artist to the EBU. Natalia Gordienko's participation has been confirmed by other sources deemed reliable, such as ESCToday." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovision1323 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've changed my mind since then – I hadn't read the Eurovoix article which is more cautious, I had only read the ESCToday article, which seems dubious after reading the Eurovoix article. And no, it's not "awkward" because Wikipedia is not a competition to see who can get their way editing. I am trying to collaborate.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Both those blogs have based their reports on Natalia Gordienko's Instagram profile, nothing else. Eurovoix is being cautious while ESC Today has a more enthusiastic take on things. We need a more solid source - something from TRM and/or the EBU. GoldenSubtle (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

TRM has confirmed - Natalia Gordienko is through. http://www.trm.md/en/eurovision/natalia-gordienco-va-reprezenta-republica-moldova-la-eurovision-2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.113.205.213 (talk) 18:05, 2021 January 26 (UTC)

Her song will be released on 8th March 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.81.48 (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@92.37.81.48: Do you have a reliable source?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes (https://eurovisionworld.com/esc/natalia-gordienko-will-represent-moldova-in-eurovision-2021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.81.48 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This source doesn't say it will be revealed on 8 March, only that that's the deadline to submit it to the EBU. It could be revealed before then.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 11:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

English language link

Just recently, a link to English language got removed from the 'Participating countries' section due to it apparently violating MOS:OVERLINK according to @Grk1011:. First of all you're not reading that section correctly since it actually states that shouldn't link any languages at all. Of course exceptions can be made, but at least be consistent and either link all languages or none. I find it ridiculous that English is not linked while French and Spanish are linked; most people would also know what those languages are. I realize that this is an English wiki, but that does not mean you have double standards and not link it 'because most people would know it'.

Also, it's always been linked on every Eurovision article for years. I really do not see how it's disruptive to have literally one extra link to make things consistent. Either link all or none. — TheThomanski | t | c | 13:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should remove most of the language links except for the most obscure languages (although to be fair, deciding what languages are "obscure" is subjective). Per MOS:OVERLINK, if the links are kept in it's because the languages would be deemed to be particularly relevant to the context, which I doubt. I'm honestly not sure if we should be including the lanaguages in the table at all when we leave out things which I think are more relevant, like songwriters, but I think that's a different conversation.

@TheThomanski: there's no reason we can't have a double standard with English on English WP. Every {{lang}} template will produce linked text except {{lang-en}} because this is English WP.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that English is by far the most common language of Eurovision songs. I took a look at last year's table (as it's more complete than this year's so far), where most songs don't link to the English language to avoid overlinking. So in a way it's already inconsistent; why should the Swedish song link to English why the rest shouldn't? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@JochemvanHees: I would note that we do that with every language – we link the first mention of a language and leave all following mentions unlinked (per MOS:REPEATLINK).  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to think about "why" we would want to link English, regardless of what was done in the past and on other articles. Do you think it's helpful for the reader? We don't link common terms, usually not even country names because they're too common. For me, to think that someone reading the English-language Wikipedia would want to read up on what the English language is would be a stretch. I want to believe that's the spirit of WP:OVERLINK. Grk1011 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely a workable compromise is to link English language on its first mention and not to link it again? doktorb _words^deeds 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the point is that we are trying to align with the WP:OVERLINK policy, so the decision was already made by a Wikipedia-wide consensus to not link it in these situations. If there is a reason to link it, it would have to be pretty convincing to override the policy. Personally, I haven't seen any reasons stated above as to why it should be linked, aside from it being done in the past. To those who want it linked, why do you think it would be an exception to the overlink guideline? Grk1011 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We link to it here Eurovision Song Contest 1960 and do not link repetitions, so I say we've found an exception which works. OVERLINK can be over-ridden if the initial link is useful, which one link to English language would be. doktorb _words^deeds 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The question is, why would someone who knows English need a link to find out what English is? Not talking about the other languages. Grk1011 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Grk1011 On the basis that someone who knows the location of London might be curious about what details are included on that article's page, I'd imagine. Click on English language and you have 100s of links to grammar, numerals, historical figures, the history and development of printing, dialects and slang, all sorts. And if you live in England and happen to speak French, you might well want to click on the French language article to open up 100s of other links to explore things, to coin a phrase, you never knew you never knew. I'm not denying that OVERLINK is serious and a policy to follow. It is an important policy. I've likely invoked it a lot during my time here. But I don't agree or accept that we should be so prescriptive. One link, to the first mention of English language, is following our link policy to the letter. doktorb _words^deeds 21:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking it is not following the policy, as it calls out English as something that "most readers will be at least somewhat familiar" in their list of "usually not linked words". It's minor enough that you can leave it for now if you really want to push this, but I fully expect for it to be required to be unlinked when we nominate this for WP:Good Article status in the future, based on my experience. Grk1011 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Source - North Macedonia

The source (43) for North Macedonia doesn't mention anything about the country or the song. Wrong link? 89.240.129.178 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are there so many internal selections? Will be 2021 year of the most internal selections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.242.189 (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we put "TBA March 2021" in the participants table for all remaining songs?

I'm starting a discussion to resolve the current edit war between 999euro and 009988aaabbbccc. I am personally against it, because it suggests that we have certainty it will actually release in March, even though that wasn't explicitly stated. We've also seen before that songs sometimes get released even after the heads of delegation meeting, such as last year with Uno. But I'm interested in what others think. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should have been removed as we have no info about it. I don't know, I also have a feeling that Armenia might withdraw from the contest as they said literally nothing last couple months about ESC. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should add "TBA March 2021" since it is a rule of Eurovision and it happens every year. Every songs released in March very last. Armenia or Belarus might withdraw from this edition however no one forsee Ukraine's withdraw in 2019 but the date was added as national final's final day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 999euro (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Which rule of Eurovision do you mean exactly? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is about the deadline of the submission of songs and artists.999euro (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also you can find this on the link: https://eurovisionworld.com/eurovision/calendar . If I am not wrong, on 1 March, the undecided releasing dates were written as "TBA March 2021" on Wikipedia in every year. 999euro (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the deadline of the submission of the songs, but not the release. It wouldn't be the first time that a song gets released past the submission deadline. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Including "TBA March 2021" would be a potential WP:SYNTHESIS issue. It's taking two sources and drawing a conclusion that is not stated in either of them. You have a source for a country participating and a source for when songs will be submitted by, but no source that states when that country will submit a song. I think it's best to wait. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It could be a proof that all songs have to released in March 2021. There is the official Twitter account of Eurovision's tweet: https://twitter.com/Eurovision/status/1366342639889616899?s=20 999euro (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You should make it a sentence before the table: "According to Eurovision rules, all songs will be identified by x date" or something like that. Did you read WP:SYNTHESIS to see why "TBA March 2021" is not acceptable? Grk1011 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that tweet is a good source, as it's a primary source that doesn't explicitly state that the songs will be released in March. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But on eurovisionworld says that songs will be released in March look - https://eurovisionworld.com/eurovision/calendar

It does not matter what "eurovisionworld" says. If we can't say, with certainty, when the song will be released, we leave the field blank doktorb _words^deeds 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we can't say for certain that songs will be released in March, only that they have been submitted to the EBU. There have been cases in the past I'm sure when the actual reveal of a country's song took place later than the submission deadline, so putting "TBD March 2021" is making an assumption, which may hold up but which we can't say for certain at this stage. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious that songs can't be released in April 2021 so.... Plus :https://eurovoxx.tv/efendis-song-for-azerbaijan-will-be-released-in-march/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.242.189 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As was said previously, released and submitted are different criteria. All entries must be submitted to the EBU by the specified date in March, but whether they are released to the general public by then is a different matter. There could be arrangements in place between the EBU and broadcasters to delay announcing certain countries songs due to whatever promotional reasons, which could theoretically go into April. So adding that all entries will be announced in March may not necessarily be correct, even if it's the most likely scenario. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

Should there be a 'controversies' section, to include the current situation in Belarus and its broadcaster and the current entry from Cyprus (controversial lyrics)? Just a thought... 80.41.90.201 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, not yet. There is nothing coming from Belarus that is that notable, yet, and much of what I've seen come from sources we can't use: blogs and Twitter, on the whole. Cyprus isn't that notable either. Some loud people have set up a petition: this isn't worthy of inclusion even with the BBC/DW/Reuters coverage. I think we need to see if their opposition to the song carries on through to April or even beyond. doktorb _words^deeds 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Albania's participation

Per this article from RTSH https://www.rtsh.al/lajme/nisin-pergatitjet-per-festivalin-e-59-te-kenges-ne-rtsh/ Festivali i Kenges will go ahead this December, but no word has been said on whether or not it will be used as a selection method for ESC 2021 yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.163.162.240 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lock the page from anonymous users

Can somebody secure the page from various vandalisms by anonymous users? 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've requested this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Eurovision_Song_Contest_2021. Grk1011 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Armenia in Incidents section

On reading it feels that mention of Armenia's withdrawal within the Incidents section of this page may be a little out of place? Looking back over previous years, withdrawals from the contest at late stages have only been referenced within the Incidents section if they have more severe reason of note for the reason of withdrawal - For example with Ukraine in 2019. Furthermore, The fact that Armenia has decided (albeit late) to withdraw, and the reasons for this, has already been mentioned within the Other Countries section below the Incidents section. Skullbird11 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I wouldn't call it an incident either. What caused their withdrawal was a local incident, not an incident for the contest itself. Grk1011 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

Add in the beginning after mentioning the countries that are set not-to-return: "which marks the lowest number of entries since the 2015 contest" (+add reference to Eurovision Song Contest 2015) Drakeand (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It looks like you are trying to cite Wikipedia as a source. Please note that citing Wikipedia should almost always be avoided. See wp:citing Wikipedia. Thanks. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 13:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-returning countries

Hungary and Montenegro should be removed. Only Armenia announced its withdraw for 2021. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The "Non-returning countries" section lists all countries that competed in the last edition of the contest and which are not competing in the current edition. Since the last edition held was in 2019, in which Montenegro and Hungary competed, this is why they are included in this section alongside Armenia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't 2020 last edition, which was just postponed? I think, putting countries withdrawn in 2019 alongside Armenia gives wrong impression about non-participating countries. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 contest was canceled not postponed, so the last edition was 2019. Grk1011 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Filming locations

Are the filming locations for the back-up performances significant enough to be included at this level of detail in this article? I think the specific filming location is more relevant to each individual country's article. Currently the list takes up a lot of space and feels rather trivial in the grand scheme of the contest. I would propose just keeping the introductory paragraph. Grk1011 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. While I think it's interesting information I think we should, as you said, keep this level of detail to the individual country articles and keep just a high-level paragraph on the main year article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Also, we don't even know if they will announce all the recording locations so "TBA" might be a bit misleading. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In the event that ESC21 will have to be held under scenario C/D, what will we do with this block of information? In the JESC2020 page the filming locations are listed in the scoreboard section for example. Pdhadam (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest we cross that bridge when we get to it. My preference would be if any artists have to isolate and the "live-on-tape" performances are used (scenario B) then we create footnotes explaining so, potentially with the location. For scenario C and D I say we revisit this once that has been officially confirmed, and potentially a similar solution to the JESC 2020 article could be implemented. I don't think including a full breakdown of the studios etc. on this page however is useful and it could potentially fall under WP:OFFTOPIC, especially at this stage where we don't even know if these performances will ever see the light of day. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I simply prefer that we give the names of the participating countries and locations, with the name of the city and country. With references in this page. Rap57 (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include filming location only for every country that actually uses the backup performance. — TheThomanski | t | c | 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Given article length and readability issues that we typically encounter, my feelings are that details that are specific to a one country should only be on that page with just a summary here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Online shows

What does anyone make of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHlrR-4Ga4U Visokor (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To me it looks like Krista will be taking over the role of online host this year (as Nikkie is now a regular presenter). Whether or not this merits Krista's addition to the "presenters" section is up for debate. Pdhadam (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, we now know that regardless of whichever format ESC21 will eventually take on in May all backup performances will be released, so maybe add that as a point in either its own section ("back-up performances") or reopen the "Alternative Programming" section? Pdhadam (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

{{edit semi-protected|Eurovision Song Contest 2021|answered=yes} }

5.173.245.196 (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What is your edit request? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

The article fails to mention the fact the Dutch government considers the event as a "Fieldlab" and will allow 3500 guests per shot. See https://nos.nl/artikel/2374944-alsnog-songfestival-met-publiek-ongeveer-helft-van-toeschouwers-welkom.html (Dutch). 85.132.252.35 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the exact text you'd like to add, remove or replace and where you'd like it placed. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitive decision on that is still not due until end of April - for all we know they could also abandon plans for an audience entirely. Also it's unneeded information, as plans for an audience falls inline with current plans for scenario B, which is already mentioned in the section Pdhadam (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We could at least mention that they intend to have an audience? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work, but be sure to emphasize that a final decision is still pending Pdhadam (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Returning Artists

I question how useful it is listing the 24 countries that internally selected the same artists as 2020. I was going to be bold and make the change, but I'm almost certain it would have been reverted, so taking it to the talk page first. Specifically, I believe the bits in green here should go.

After the cancellation of the 2020 contest, the participating broadcasters of the following 24 countries announced that, for the 2021 contest, they would internally select the same artists initially selected for 2020: Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. In addition, the artists initially selected for Estonia and Lithuania in 2020 won their national finals to represent their countries in 2021.

Signed, Spa-Franks (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If it were just a few countries then I wouldn't mind mentioning them, but having such a long list is not really useful. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree as well. Grk1011 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) I agree the listing looks heavy due the amount and I don't feel very strongly on not pointing. With that since it's still only part, and significant one which links a consequence for the first time the contest (previous year) got cancelled and due the amount of countries who still realized the 2020 selected artists dream to participate; also from your comment JochemvanHees that you wouldn't mind pointing if just few; I think readers may be interested to know who was (and wasn't) acknowledged based on 2020. I can suggest two more options: Add tables key-note saying something as "countries marked with "*" chose the 2020 intended performers", so only "*" or another sign accompanies their mentions on semis and final table. The other - on the other side only 15 countries didn't + 2 countries are also pointed by choosing the same 2020 performers because they won their national finals again in 2021; which leaves only 13 countries as a still much shorter list (almost half the current 24) to point for those who didn't send the intended 2020 ones. After laying out these two other options, if this doesn't seem fine solutions, I would also support then to remove the 24 prose-listing. אומנות (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think keeping the article simple in this regard is the better alternative, and I think adding footnotes or anything else that draws attention would be a negative addition and would run counter to consistency in other articles as well. We don't add footnotes stating that other artists in other years were returning, so why here? I understand it's a unique situation but calling it out in this way I think would make the article look cluttered. This information should be covered in the country articles in any case so calling it out here would be a duplication of effort in my opinion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think "readers want to know this" often runs into WP:TRIVIA. It's interesting information, but is it encyclopedic? Trivia sounds too dramatic here, but in the grand scheme of the contest, we would want to ask ourselves why which specific countries sending a repeat entrant is important to the contest? I definitely think it's worthwhile information on a "Country in" or "Country in year" article, but it has little consequence to the actual overall event. Grk1011 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

By interesting I mean my thoughts of relevance and encyclopedic-also as agreed per individual countries' articles (so encyclopedic); also as try to approach JochemvanHees' comment direction, for which the shorter 13 countries prose option; and the unchallenged (by Spa-Franks or anyone) Estonia and Lithuania pointing 2020 intended performers, though chosen on new merits for 2021, so even unrelated or indirect to 2020. For tables, I personally don't view keynote and "*" signs as much clutter/effort, and as cosmetically there are notes above/below tables though for other stuff. "why here?" was self-answered as unique, so I will just add that returning countries/artists names/more details are mentioned on tables/prose, only here there's a special dual given and still for 2020 is discussed for pointing just countries (13) (in addition to the normal previous years), which connects to know for the artists anyway pointed at these year's/article's tables. And as there's already attention with intended focus via sections for returns, here with a sentence "24 countries chose the same" + 2 countries happen choosing same so don't follow how turns negative, though understand if feels too cluttered also for those 13, in prose, anyway the intention was avoiding 24 clutter.

And as for what I wrote before, seems significant to me as direct consequence for 24 representatives from a cancelled edition, which otherwise would had been different 24 now. Also Grk1011 to share with you what happened for me, per your relevance discussion, is that I first read the info of "24 countries chose…" then wanted to know and kept reading which – which then made me able to look at the participants tables which are of course agreed as relevant here, and compare to the prose to know for example that France didn't choose the same which in turn can intrigue going to its country article to see their selection process, or on the other hand in turn can intrigue going to read its article if/what was said about choosing the same representative. So I think the same for part of other readers and said may be interested just (as I don't know) in this central article but not the individual ones which are stand alone and therefore shouldn't be dependent on each other. From this too, I overall think it's simple, relevant, also useful coverage to point 13 countries as such pointing seems to me proportional scope also following the sentence explaining many countries sent the same people, and preceding the sentence pointing Estonia and Lithuania who are not direct to 2020. And, as I agree the individual articles should have their elaborated scope for the selection processes. But, if that's still disagreed, I agree in any case the current 24 list in itself looks too much, even if removing it means not pointing which countries, at all. אומנות (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Funnily enough, when I came to read the entries after they’d all been revealed, I did wonder why there isn’t anything standing out to say which artists are returning from the previous year, instead I had to go back to the 2020 contest page by opening a new tab and comparing. I’m not sure how this would be introduced but I think it would be helpful? Or maybe even a footnote under countries artist to state if they returned from the previous year Lauren-mae69 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Lauren-mae69. I'm just not sure if I understand you correctly; if you mean additional notes/explanations below each artist names within the tables here, I think that's too much, for such similar purpose there's the "*" signs with the keynote option. If that's still looks somewhat clutter, anyway personally I like the option of remaining 13 at prose which still gives coverage and to sharpen my view, as I perceive as relevant, since to begin with this article concentrates info about participating countries and also for returns from previous years (and as on other articles), and this option won't touch so even won't slightly clutter the tables in anyway. And can still then conclude from these 13 (+2 Estonia and Lithuania) the other 24, without needing to compare via other articles as also open the 2020 one, as you said. אומנות (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't necessarily get the point of highlighting countries that didn't select their 2020 artist again. Broadcasters have full autonomy to determine who represents them at the contest, and while many chose to pick their artist from last year that didn't compete there is nothing in the rules stating that they had to, so highlighting as such I think could be misleading, as if to say they should have done so. Yes it might reduce the list of countries but I don't think it's encyclopaedic to state countries that didn't do something, and I think calling out countries with footnotes or something else might impede legibility given the number of countries. All this should be (and is) covered in the country articles so replicating it here I don't believe adds value, and for the point regarding comparing between 2020 and 2021 I believe may fall under WP:NOTDATABASE. Having some note stating that certain number of countries chose the same artist internally or through NF is certainly relevant and keeps in context of the article, but going beyond that I believe is not required and could be detrimental. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I said and meant the 13 pointing encapsulates to know the other 24, who did, while avoiding a bigger 24 prose-clutter, and still finds a minimalist simple way. Further, if explaining "these chose to hold new selections" also vividly shows they're entitled to by the rules or wouldn't be able to begin with. And as an article concentrating and dedicating participants/returns sections, while elaborate explanations for the individual articles (which their existence stem from this annual competition subject) with their proportionate coverage, as I see it. And as for previous further comments, further thought the 13-prose can work for all or most. The prose option wasn't previously directly addressed, so now I understand you feel implications of countries "allowed" or aren't to choose. I still certainly see it as valid; pointing countries is just that, detail for an already general sentence addressing "some countries did some chose different". So I still see implications thoughts of as "allowed", as stretched interpretation. Ultimately was a try for pointing by the by give simple dry conclusion to all, and so not stating anywhere if looks good/bad/moral to do as they wish (and as for the user who merely wants to compare to 2020, for example); and as thought for further intrigue to read the elaborated explanations on the country articles. So we stay on different views for interpretation, for still too detailed or cluttered, I can understand. So, anyway seems the current 24 is agreed by most to be removed. אומנות (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve just seen there is infact a list in the returning artists section, I just hadn’t looked hard enough. Never mind.Lauren-mae69 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I know that this discussion is basically already over, but I just noticed that there's the Entries section which already covers carryovers from 2020, and it's a really short section currently. I think maybe we can put the list of countries that selected their 2020 artist in that section? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

JochemvanHees thanks for expressing your view-suggestion and a discussion can always continue whenever you want. I also personally appreciate you suggest, as my 13 countries option came to me from your previous view of if it were fewer countries to point out, so happy to know you've seen it even if you disagree with this specifically. I also though about this deeply as further relevant and useful after looking at places at the article which highlight for example - even in the lead - countries who aren't participating this year but as they did in the last 2019 edition so "non-returning"; and now following your comment for actually 2 sections talking in general about this (Returning artists, and Entries), and as per the current highlight of only Estonia and Lithuania, with info they held national finals and happened to choose the same artists from 2020.

So further for which countries, and in the phrase of "held selections" as corresponds to the already existing pointing Estonia and Lithuania national finals action, and then simply attach that to the already appearing "24 countries", but instead phrase as "the remaining countries" who took (the same artists from 2020). Also in case it wasn't clear enough from my previous comments, my 13 option is to describe their action by "holding selections" (and not: those "didn't" took the same artists as the other countries). So if a reader sees Israel or Netherlands aren't among those 13, he knows they are among those moved from 2020, and based on a shorter list. At the beginning I didn't feel much strongly about his, but now I further think it's relevant as corresponding to the tables which show these artists who were moved to 2021, so also moved to appear on this article. So JochemvanHees, Ithink like you it should be covered in some way, though I think about mentioning these 13, and at the "Returning artists" seems to me best as it also already talks about returns from previous-other years, and also already highlight the national finals for Estonia and Lithuania, and anyway also a short section. אומנות (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Although I still won't have much objection to put it under "Entries" as you suggest, and if for the bigger 24 countries list.

As anyway will still give this coverage, even if in a different place and manner. אומנות (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I think I do agree with you that it makes sense to include which countries selected their 2020 artists, especially now that I see it's also mentioned in the lead. On second thought, I think that the Entries section and the Returning artists section basically discuss the same thing, which makes me wonder if it's a good idea to merge the Entries section into the Returning artists one. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you too :-) Yeah I didn't notice this the "many participating countries allocated same..." in the lead, since I focused on Armenia Hungary, Montenegro also pointed here (for didn't return) as to further previously explain my views. So yeah, as well as I sharpen bit further - also whole paragraphs dedicated to non-returning countries (Other Countries), even countries who participated once many years ago or until several years ago but as they make new announcements each year to let know they won't return and why; and the more sided spokespersons for the national broadcasts, as well non-returns from previous years even backing vocalists, considered relevant. So here it's even about active countries with most of their 39 performers from 2020, appearing at the participants tables; the centrality-bulk of this article, assembling-composing 2021 competition.

As for the "Entries", although it's more on the decision to not take the same songs from 2020, I think you have a point (or otherwise I personally wouldn't mind) to see it adjoined to the then explanation for countries holding selections (if accepted eventually), alongside countries just still taking the same singers; as still the discussions if using same songs and same singers interface each another. Thank you for raising this too, to think about. אומנות (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Australia not competing in Rotterdam, will use their backup performance.

https://eurovision.tv/mediacentre/release/australia-to-use-live-on-tape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdhadam (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If more countries have to use their backup performance I wonder if it's worth adding a table column rather than footnotes? Just a thought. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's only worth doing if it's a lot of them. If it's just a handful (which I think is more likely) might as well just say it in the prose. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Extra events aka "Other sites"

How will we handle this section for this year? Here are some recent news: - Just yesterday it was confirmed that the Eurovillage is moving 100% online (https://www.rtlboulevard.nl/entertainment/showbizz/artikel/5226835/streep-door-eurovision-village-met-publiek) - The opening ceremony is still happening on 16 May, ostensibly in the Cruise Terminal again (https://rotterdam.raadsinformatie.nl/document/10046594/1#search=%22Songfestival%20%22) - page 22; (https://www.instagram.com/p/CNK2pHJpoBO/)--Pdhadam (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say just add a second paragraph to the Location section saying where the openinc ceremony will be and that the (other) side events won't happen this year. We don't need an entire section for it because there's not much to say about it. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Elisa as Portuguese spokesperson - is tag for her planned 2020 participation needed?

Before this turns into an edit war, I just want to give this topic in particular a space to discuss.--Pdhadam (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I added this one, I think it is worth dedicating a few words to state that she was the planned 2020 entrant, she was Portugal's 2020 singer, she just didn't get to compete due to the cancellation. As participants from the other years do get this information, including Carola this year, I personally think it is worth adding for 2020 intended entrants, just with wording stating 'intended' or 'cancelled' due to the cancellation of that year as a competition. Wp27 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Previous revisions of the page also had this tag, but were removed by higher-ups due to the fact that 2020 did not take place, thus the entries from 2020 are not counted towards the actual list of ESC entrants - this includes Elisa, thus she can be treated as just a non-ESC entrant figure --Pdhadam (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would dispute the "higher-ups" label, I don't think there is any hierarchy of editors within WikiProject Eurovision, just those who have more experience or have been editing for longer. I'll wade in here however, I think marking Elisa in this way is unnecessary. We wouldn't mark acts that failed in national finals or were withdrawn before competing, and hypothetically we wouldn't label acts that didn't pass through the 1993 or 1996 pre-selections either, so I think this case would fall under this category as she is not considered an official ESC participant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

These are just explanatory notes, so that the reader knows who those people actually are. In my view it doesn't even have to be something Eurovision-related. But if we normally don't include those notes for national final winners, then I agree, there is currently no reason to be inconsistent with that. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Would 2020 intended participants be a different case to failed national final participants and withdrawn participants though, since there is an official cd with the intended Eurovision 2020 songs, and an official Eurovision programme in 'Europe Shine A Light', in which 30 seconds of those songs was shown as those countries entries, it could arguably be counted as a spin-off as with JESC? Wp27 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I do see now that we're also including past JESC hosts, so I guess we might as well then include appearances other Eurovision-related events. It really doesn't have to be some "official" participation as long as we're being somewhat consistent. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Greek spokesperson

Sorry, accidentally pressed "Enter" before writing a description about the add of the Greek spokesperson info. I think it should be included since it is a record and usually records are honorable mentions and included where needed. Eurofan2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurofan2000 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a rather trivial record though. Like a record that doesn't require any effort by the 'recipient'. Things like so and so won the contest previously may be notable, but I don't believe just being young meets the threshold. Grk1011 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The additional programming section

I'm thinking about removing this section. Or at least merging it with the presenters section, because a lot of info is already duplicated in the sections anyway. I question how relevant it is to the actual contest to list all the different online YouTube series. It's also rather selective in how it does that; why does Krista Calling get mentioned, but Music First doesn't? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest if needed, only remove the information related to Krista Calling and LookLab. The Song Celebration should stay imo as it will mark the public release of all LoT performances. And there's also a third run of #EurovisionAgain coming in the summer. Pdhadam (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Flo Rida note

@IceWelder: Although there's no inline reference, this has nothing to do with original research. It is entirely true that the song features vocals from Flo Rida, and doesn't speculate anything. The reason why it's in a note and not in the table itself as "feat. Flo Rida", is because it is not certain if the performance will feature him too. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The column lists the act name as it is presented; it always has. For San Marino, the act name is "Senhit". There is clearly some form of original research involved, given that the note was justified by this Spotify listing for an alternative version of "Adrenalina" that is not taking part in the competition. The actual version does not credit Flo Rida -- not that this would affect my original point.

If we still were to list Flo Rida despite him not being listed as a part of the act, why would San Marino be the only country where we do this? What about Rafał's and Hooverphonic's backing singers or the three singers accompanying Jendrik? Furthermore, why isn't Samuel, the rapper who is actually present for San Marino at the moment, listed? If we consistently applied these kinds of notes, the table would be more than cluttered and unreadable. It's best dealt with by leaving such details to the relevant articles, i.e. San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 and Adrenalina (Senhit song) in the case of Flo Rida. IceWelder [✉] 21:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Flo Rida is actually credited in the song, as explained in the comment. Jendrik's backing singers are not. And yes the table lists the act name as presented, which is why Flo Rida is not in the table. It's just there as an explanatory note. Since Flo Rida being in the song is a pretty big deal, I think the note is definitely relevant. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The column lists the act name as it is presented; it always has. For San Marino, the act name is "Senhit". There is clearly some form of original research involved, given that the note was justified by this Spotify listing for an alternative version of "Adrenalina" that is not taking part in the competition. The actual version does not credit Flo Rida -- not that this would affect my original point.

The act name is Senhit but Flo Rida is present on the song and in the official music video on the ESC channel. There is no original research also the table goes by "Artist" not "Act". The San Marino delegation also confirmed regardless if Flo Rida is on stage or not his rap portion will remain. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If we still were to list Flo Rida despite him not being listed as a part of the act, why would San Marino be the only country where we do this? What about Rafał's and Hooverphonic's backing singers or the three singers accompanying Jendrik? Furthermore, why isn't Samuel, the rapper who is actually present for San Marino at the moment, listed? If we consistently applied these kinds of notes, the table would be more than cluttered and unreadable. It's best dealt with by leaving such details to the relevant articles, i.e. San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 and Adrenalina (Senhit song) in the case of Flo Rida.

Backing vocalists are not normally indicated in the tables on the main page by notes since they "provide vocal harmony with the lead vocalist or other backing vocalists." Flo Rida is more akin to an uncredited, featured artist on the track since he is only present for his rap verse. Samuel is not included in the chart since he is only present during rehearsals and Flo Rida is not. (If we include Samuel then we have to have a note beside Go_A who had a stand-in during rehearsals as well.)

How the San Marino delegation choses to handle Flo Rida's rap verse in the event he does not go to Eurovision is up in the air and we can address that issue if/when it arises. However the original note was not original research since Flo Rida is present in the official ESC video (and subsequent recaps) and the San Marino delegation has stated that Flo Rida's rap verse will remain regardless if he goes to Eurovision or not. Maybe changing the note to say "The song features uncredited vocals from Flo Rida" would be more accurate since it is more in line with the official video on the ESC's YouTube channel. The note also clears up any confusion for readers reading this article for information on Flo Rida in the simplest way possible since one of the biggest questions relating to San Marino right now is "will Flo Rida be at Eurovision?" Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Take a breather, both of you. The current state is surely the best one to keep only a few days before the event itself happens? Maybe Thursday night will confirm everything for us and we won't need this back and forth? Mediation hat on here: keep the note, keep Flo Rida out of the table, and wait a few days. We're not a news ticker, we're a record of what happened, not a prediction of what might. doktorb _words^deeds 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the note has been there for months then removed, added back then removed again (all done within 24 hrs) reaching a consensus sooner than later would be the better course of action before an IP, new editor or uninvolved editor re-adds the note before the event in question takes place. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my somewhat aggressive comments. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding accessability as per MOS

As per MOS:COLOUR "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels." I suggest adding a dagger † to the semi-final table for accessibility ~ Ablaze (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that. I have now added a dagger symbol and key to the table. Potentially these will become redundant once the full results are released after the final, but it certainly is required for now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Iceland pre-recorded

Because of Covid Iceland’s performance tomorrow will be the pre-recorded version.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What does N/A mean in the broadcasts table?

Lots of the commentators have N/A there, but to me it is not clear what this actually means. Does it mean there was no commentary? If so shouldn't it just say that? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but I would think potentially it's more like any commentator information is currently unknown. And tbh it should probably say that rather than N/A. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are we using a dagger symbol?

The dagger in informative and academic sources is used almost exclusively to denote that someone has died (or that something has ended). It is a very strange choice of symbol to use as a "qualified country". There are so many other possible symbols we could use including a simple check-mark. Unless that symbol must be used for other important reasons (such as a necessary coding for visually impaired readers) can we please replace it with something else? Shabidoo | Talk 23:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Flo Rida

Flo Rida is not credited anywhere as performer on official Eurovision socials as well as in the text just before the performance. Previously we had a note explaining that Adrenalina contains uncredited vocals from Flo Rida, and I want to bring that back. In my opinion we should always follow artist names and song titles used in the actual shows. — TheThomanski | t | c | 12:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree; the participating artist was Senhit and it should be listed as such. I would change the footnote though to say that the act featured Flo Rida instead of just the song. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It is correct that for the on screen credit for San Marino, there is no mention of Flo Rida. The artist is named simply as "Senhit". The official Eurovision website also only lists Senhit as the artist. Thus I don't think Flo Rida should be mentioned in any format. He's simply an uncredited backing singer. As was Al Bano for Switzerland in 2000 and Paul Harrington in 1998 for Ireland in other examples.65.113.135.165 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Well he is actually credited in the song, just not in the act, so I do think it is worth mentioning it. I also find it ingenuine to call him a backing singer; he performed a significant part of the song. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Then we have to go back to all previous contests and adjust all the credits where debate will ensue. In 1957, Sim Neveen performed a significant part of the Dutch song. Yet he is not mentioned at all as the performance was credited just to Corry Brokken. Hazell Dean performed a significant part of the UK entry in 1984. She actually performed all the lead vocal, but was hidden off camera. Let's not go there. If wikipedia moves away from following the on screen credits and the official website credits, integrity will become a huge issue. According to the broadcast of this year's Eurovision Song Contest, San Marino's entry was performed by Senhit. No other credit is given. Wikipedia should follow this official credit.

Oh, I did not know that. Because it wasn't on Wikipedia. Look, these footnotes don't follow the official website anyway. For example, the song Loco Loco is listed on the ESC website as being in Serbian, even though it clearly also contains English and Spanish. So on Wikipedia, we add a footnote explaining it, for completeness's sake. We can do the same with Adrenalina: list it as a Senhit song, but explain that Flo Rida also played a large part in the performance. If that also applies to other entries, then yes we should also add it there. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we? Oh! I didn't know 'we' did that. OK. Go right ahead and do whatever 'we' think is best. We'll then go through every ESC entry on wikipedia and add all the relevant footnotes that we should also add. Fair enough. Thank you for explaining to us how we use wikipedia. 65.113.135.165 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to refer to the current state of Eurovision articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect scoreboards semi final 1 televote & grand final jury vote

Croatia received 2 points from Cyprus in the first semi final televote scores. This score is missing from the grid. Croatia's total of 110 is shown correctly, but the points in the grid only add up to 108. For the final, the Swiss jury votes are showing that they awarded 5 points twice. Lithuania received 4 from Switzerland, not 5. The total of 220 is correct, but the points as shown add up to 221. 65.113.135.165 (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Corrections made after page was opened for editing.65.113.135.165 (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)