Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016/Archive 1

Sweden
Sweden should be colored purple because they has approved the membership in Eurovision Song Contest 2016! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.32.69 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Norwegian participation is likely
wether NRK or tv2 will be the participaing broadcaster is still uncertain. NRK have economical problems while tv2 does not. 2A02:FE0:C100:1:853:7F83:D28A:3F52 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we consider confirmed these countries?
If countries' confirmations are considered "provisional", as the article itself states, I don't think we can consider them as confirmed. If I remember correctly, the criteria for confirmation involved an official statement by the TV channel that represents the country, right? In these cases, the sources for Sweden and Finland are statements regarding their national selections, the source for Turkey is a blog post that traces back to a dead link, and the source for Hungary is a youtube video featuring an interview with the 2015 singer. I don't think any of them reaches enough quality or definitiveness to consider it an official confirmation of participation.

Can we please not get ahead of ourselves? It's still over a month to go until the 2015 contest. After that is over, it will be time to start thinking about next year. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The man who says that sentence in the Hungarian video („Negyedik alkalommal áll itt a győztes, jövőre ötödik alkalom lesz…”, in English: „The winner is standing here for the fourth time, next year will be the fifth time…”, at 1:26) is dr. László Zsolt Szabó, the Chief Executive Officer of MTVA. It means that Hungary will participate in 2016. (I'm Hungarian so I understood everything in the video.)
 * About Finland: UMK is the Finnish ESC national final. And the Eurovoix article says that it will be held in 2016. It means that Finland will participate too.
 * Sweden should be removed because the two sources for the country aren't good sources. (I didn't see any confirmation for participation and for Melodifestivalen.)
 * About Turkey: I found this article (in Turkish) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/kelebek/paparazzi/28134438.asp?noMobile=true. It says the same as Eurovoix, that the country will return in 2016.
 * The conclusion: out of these four countries only Sweden should be removed from the list. (And sorry for the possible mistakes.) D97v (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot recall which thread in the past it was determined to use the term "provisional", but such debate did happen, with agreement to use the term. That in turn resulted in WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides, which states that "provisional list of participants" should be used, as it is a known factor that such list is subject to change between now and the 2016 contest. That aside, any of the project's reliable sources (listed here) that mentions a country will take part in 2016, can be listed under the provisional section. If at any stage a doube arises, then such country should be moved to the "Other countries" section, with a written prose giving details. Turkey had announced they would return in 2016, hence why this article was "create unprotected" so early. I'm dubious of using YouTube as a source under any circumstance, and not just Eurovision-related articles. YouTube being used as a source, should only come from an official YouTube channel, and not a "fan upload". So anything from Eurovision.tv channel, or nowadays one of the Eurovision news websites which also publishes video news via YouTube, would be OK. But anything should be avoided at any cost. The same goes for Twitter as sources, which resulted in this decision to use with Twitter caution.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Australian hosting
I added the line about the potential hosting should Australia win in 2015, which was reverted by User:Wesley Mouse as falling foul of WP:CRYSTAL.

There are two reasons why my edit should stand. Firstly, without it, the article's statement that the winning country will host the 2016 event is false. There is a chance that Australia will win, and if they do, they will not host the contest. As such, some explanation of this possibility needs to be present in the article. Secondly, it is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL, which is for unverifiable speculation. This is not unverifiable speculation, but rather - to quote WP:CRYSTAL "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects". If I had linked to, say this article, and claimed that Germany would host should Australia win, then it would have been correct to rule my edit out on the grounds of WP:CRYSTAL. My edit, however, was based on verifiable information. Grutness...wha?  23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and you just hit the proverbial nail on the head. "There is a chance that Australia will win" which is speculative context at this present time, especially when bookmaker favourites are Sweden and fan favourites Italy. Therefore to exclaim that "Australia will win" is per WP:CRYSTAL, speculative content, which is not permitted. The fact that Australia may win and the information surrounding it is already housed at primary article, Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and at Eurovision Song Contest 2016. An in-depth wording like you done in the lead is excessive. Lead sections are suppose to summarize, not go into full detail. Secondly, per WP:CITELEAD we do not add citations into a lead section. This was pointed out to myself some time ago during a FA review, when I was informed that leads and infoboxes should not contain citations.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 10:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you ignore it in the lead and say that the winning country will host the contest, you are assuming that Australia will not win. That is equally speculative. By your concept of WP:CRYSTAL, neither statement can be allowed. However, you are misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL - excising mention of valid contingencies is not the reason it was created (I should know, I was involved in some of the discussions relating to it way back when). "There is a chance" does not mean "this is one of an infinite number of possibilities raised by speculation" it means "this is a possible outcome for which contingencies have been put in place." As such, there is no crystal-ball gazing about it. It is a specific, listed contingency. It is no more inappropriate than the list of potential host nations in the likes of 2026 Winter Olympics, or the list of potential coalitions in United Kingdom general election, 2015. Saying that Italy and Sweden are favourites is irrelevant - in fact your speculation that these countries are more likely to win that Australia seems to be much more a case of crystal-ball gazing than anything that I added to the article. As for your further comments about it being in the 2015 article, this makes perfect sense, since each year's article is parallel to each other year's. Do we excise all material from the 2015 article already mentioned in the 2014 article? No. The lede of the 2015 article deals with the winner of the 2014 contest (already thoroughly dealt with in the 2014 article). It is an important part of the article. So too is the information about potential hosts nations an important (at the moment, the most important) part of the 2016 article. And yes, the information is also mentioned further down the 2016 article - but the main purpose of a lede is to summarise the article - including summarising information about potential host nations. As such, it is important for the lede of the 2016 article to give information about contingencies which have been put in place (therefore no WP:CRYSTAL) to cover the possibility of Australia winning, in the same way as it covers the rules governing hosting should a European nation win (also not WP:CRYSTAL). Grutness...wha?  10:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Poland and Turkey on the map
Currently, the map shows Turkey as purple and Poland as gray. It should be the opposite, as Poland has confirmed their interest in participating in 2016, while Turkey is not likely to return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosertnom (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... Turkey has actually confirmed his participation88.189.246.203 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't. Even the ESCtoday source given in the article says a Turkish return has not been confirmed. I don't know why Turkey is even listed as returning when it's not been confirmed at all by TRT. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Some serious violations of WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS
In the article, the text correctly says that a few countries have expressed potential interest, even though not all the sources meet WP:RS so even that is quite dubious. From that already uncertain claim, the lead states that eight countries have "confirmed" their participation and the infobox says the same. Finding one source somwhere saying that somebody from a country has expressed potential interested is not the same as confirming participation. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we do not need to be first with reporting who will participate. We should not even try. WP:CRYSTAL also applies. I'd suggest removing all speculations of this kind and only include countries whose official representation has made clear, in a WP:RS source, that they will participate.Jeppiz (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no violations here, although it may look as such to those who are unfamiliar with the contest. WikiProject Eurovision treats the confirmations as "provisional" and as such even titles the section as "provisional list of participants" - because it is known that the list is subject to change between now and the official publication by the EBU in December 2015. As long as there are reliable sources then they are permitted for inclusion within the article. Members of Project Eurovision determined which sources are deemed reliable, and a full list can be found here.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 01:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you re-read my post, you'll see I already agreed there is no problem with the section provisional list of participants, but the problem is with the lead and the infobox.Jeppiz (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you mean now. Sincere apologies for the confusion. Yes, the lead, infobox, and participation map all show 10; yet the provisional list only contains 8. We need more clarity and correct this one way or another. Is it 10 or 8?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's a problem when we say different numbers in different places, and when we sometimes say confirmed, sometimes provisional. I'm sure all users are doing their edits in good faith, but there seems to be a wish among some for us to be first with the confirmations, which is contrary to what this is about. Some of the countries in the provisional list of participants are perfectly ok, good WP:RS that support their intention to participate. I would move we stick to any such country we can find, and don't add countries unless we have confirmation from a reliable sours (ie not from various personal fansites or blogs).Jeppiz (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * this is an issue that happens every year post-contest. As a result the list of reliable Eurovision-related websites was produced for project members to use for verification on these matters. Yes, some folk will get eager and start to add their desired participating countries without taking into due care and attention that we must cite what we add. I know this article is semi-protected to prevent IP's from adding such uncited content. However, IPs are now getting clever and registering for Wikipedia accounts so that they can get around semi-protected articles. Perhaps this issue needs to be addressed higher up in the Wikipedia community? IP's creating accounts to get around semi-protection, in order to carry out vandalism, defeats the object of semi-protecting in the first place. Do you think we need to request the protection level be changed to pending review?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you had the best intentions, but I'd ask you not to change my comments, including the title I pick for my comment. Thanks. I've now tagged the article, as the mess continues. The map, the infobox and the text never seem match, somebody is always changing one without changing the other so the article contradicts itself all the time. I have doubts on some of the sources. The Spanish participation is not found in the source. My Hungarian is not good, so could someone please explain where the confirmation is and translate it to English? It looks uncertain. I'm not too sure on Eurovoix as WP:RS either, it seems rather speculative.Jeppiz (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the title, as I used the new name linked into a comment on another users talk page who is constantly adding unsourced countries. The current title you chose was not working in the pipelink. I think getting these people to this very discussion is more plausible and something which I'm sure you would want to achieve so that we can get as many people aware of what is being discussed and minimise the controversial editing. Eurovoix are highly reliable and have been used for years now by WP:ESC. Like I said, you can find a full list of Eurovision-related websites that WikiProject Eurovision have deemed to be highly reliable and safe to use by visiting WikiProject Eurovision/Sources.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm also assuming that you are new to Project Eurovision and are unfamiliar with how the project have operated over the last 11 years? There are formatting styles that the project !voted to use which can be found at WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides. The infobox is always updated even at this early stage, with the number of "participants to date". Blanking the content like you did is deviating away from a project consensus that has been around for years. Also, we still show the returning country data in the same infobox, even though they are provisional at this stage. So again, blanking that data is not something which the project has done, and in the past has caused severe edit wars with users being sanctioned for something that is easily avoidable if people just talked and took the time to check the project guidelines.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't be getting mixed up with "confirmed" and "expressing interest". WikiProject Eurovision lists any country that has a reliable source that verifies a country has expressed their intent to participate. This is why we have a provisional list section. Anything that is dubious gets listed in the "other countries" section. If any of the websites deemed reliable by the project publish material regarding a country, then it is safe to be included in the article. This does not violate original research, as there are publish sources verifying what is being included, and that is the core factor here. If someone were to just add a country without citing it, then that is original research. would you care to add further on this, and provide additional information to {U|Jeppiz}} on the standards that WikiProject Eurovision have carried out over the years?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm quite experienced at Wikipedia, though it's true I've rarely edited Eurovision articles. If the argument is that ESC articles somehow operate under different rules, I'd appreciate an WP:AN confirmation that that is the case, as I find it somewhat surprising. And I have no problem with the section about countries intending to participate. I do have a problem with:
 * Using sources that don't support the claims (as in the case of Spain).
 * Interpreting sources to say what one wants them to say (as in the case of Germany).
 * Articles contradicting themselves (as in the map, the infobox and the text all saying different things).
 * Misrepresenting sources (as in saying that countries have confirmed their participation, when all he have are expressions of intent.
 * And with due regards, I also find it a bit strange that you delete tags and change the title of my comment. Neither of those are in line with normal Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I had a look at the pages you suggested. WikiProject Eurovision/Sources is exclusively your own page, you're the only one who has edited it, and there has been almost no talk page discussions about the sources. The same goes for WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides, you're the only one who has edited it and there is no talk page. It follows that none of these site has any authority whatsoever about how articles are written and I admit I'm quite surprised you even pass them on as that. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you've done a great job. But none of these articles represent a Wikipedia policy.Jeppiz (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment those pages are not "exclusively mine", and I find it somewhat rude that you are trying to accuse me of "ownership" here. Those pages were created after many discussions at WT:ESC which are now archived, and I do not have the time to go searching through them all. But you are welcome to browse through the project talk archives if you wish to seek answers. But I will provide links to two that I do remember, which will add insight into the consensus that project members reached upon regarding article layouts.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 12
 * In regards to the issues you list above, yes I agree that the source used for Spain did not verify anything. The source for Germany on the otherhand, did verify. The source has a quote from the head of entertainment for ARD, the German broadcaster in charge of their Eurovision selection process, in which I added the quote into the cite web parameter, something which I have always done so people can see there is a quote to add extra verification to the content. The contradicting issue is something that always crops up, as people will add/remove countries and forget to update the number of participants in the infobox and/or lead. We should assume good faith that they merely forgot to update this information or didn't know it needed updating. Long-time members of Project Eurovision, however, check this and will update them accordingly if it is noticed that an editor merely forgot to update the numbers.
 * And there is no misinterpreting sources I'm afraid. Like I said, nothing is confirmed, even if a reliable source says so. That is why we use the "provisional" term, and note in the prose that the list is "subject to change, pending official publication by the EBU". That does not make us sound like a "blog". If we're to go off your theory, then perhaps you would like to raise the same issue with WikiProject Olympics, who also list "provisional" countries for their future articles. Both WP:OLY and WP:ESC have a future-class scale, because these articles are dealing with a future event. You can ask any project member here, and they would all agree that the precedence method that has been used for 11 years has always been the same. Your version is something the project has never done, and if such needs to be changed, then perhaps opening a RfC at the project talk page would be logical, seeing as we are ultimately infringing on the impact of a project a whole here. Oh, and if you want to start throwing the proveribal "experience editor" excuse, then I too am experienced with god knows how many GA, FA, A-class, articles under my belt. And a highly regarded member of Project Eurovision too. But telling someone they are experienced is just "pointy". Nobody is experienced, nobody is perfectr,. we all have flaws; including you and I.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, and I did not at all intend to invoke WP:OWN, I merely said that from the look of it, those pages are not official Wikipedia policies. As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with the "provisional" section, but with the sentence in the lead stating that certain countries have confirmed participation. The only reason I mentioned "experienced" was because you said I was new, so perhaps a bit less touchy? I haven't accused you of anything, on the contrary, all I can see is that you've been doing a great job for several years. I do think, as I've said, that we should all keep WP:NOTNEWS in mind.Jeppiz (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said you were new to Wikipedia. What I did say was I assume you were "new" to WikiProject Eurovision - a big difference between being new to Wikipedia and new to joining a Wikipedia project area. Now back to these "owned" sections. Following this archived discussion, WikiProject Eurovision/Sources was created to make life easier and for members to be able to refer back to the list in a place were they are welcome to update it periodically. Also there were debates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 12 which resulted in the fact that we had encountered a problem with speculative information. Especially when in the past people created sections for "possible withdrawal", "possible debut", etc. This was why a new section entitled "other countries" was agreed, so that we could remove the speculative aspect. If any of the sources from the list or other reliable sources published news that a country had 100% confirmed, then they could be added to the "provisional list of participants" section. However, if there were sources that published a country had "expressed an interest" or "considering their participation plans", then these should be housed in the "other countires" section, along with a brief prose to explain they interest as published by sources.
 * In the archive 12 link, noted the following (and I quote) "I don't recognize any conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. Any content about potential participation has to be verified, and WP:CRYSTAL only disallows "unverifiable speculation". It further elaborates on this, stating "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Therefore content on the potential participation of any country is permissible, if properly referenced. I don't see any relevance to WP:NOTNEWS at all; that'll have to be elaborated". Seeing as Chris is an experienced administrator, and founder member of Project Eurovision, then I'm 99.9% certain that he knows what he is talking about. Which takes us back to my earlier comment. Anything that is published and can be sourced to verify a country is definitely taking part in 2016, should be listed under the "provisional" section. Any published sources that only state a country has expressed, or is looking into 2016 participation, but have not said they are definitely going to be in Sweden, should be added to the "other countries" section only. This keeps in line with all Wikipedia core policies, and avoids any violations of them.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
Before the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, speculations of which city the contest would be held. At an early stage it was clear that Malmö would be the hosting city due to a rotation schema between the three largest cities in Sweden; Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Now Gothenburg is the only city which have not held the contest twice which makes it most likely to become the hosting city of the 61:th competition in 2016.

Novalandet (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Until there are sources, then we cannot assume that Gothenburg will be the host city. You basis constitutes original research and is not permitted under Wikipedia guidelines.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 05:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Request 1
Please, in the section 'EBU Active Members' include "Malta - The Executive Supervisior of PBS Malta said in a statement that Malta's next Eurovision appointment is in 2016 where changes will be made in the selection of the Maltese song. An official confirmation of Malta 's 2016 participation is still to be given." *

ESCpert (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source
 * Another user has already done the change.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 12:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Request 2
It's to be noted that the Head of Entertainment (and Head of Delegation), Nathalie André, at France 2, the French broadcaster for Eurovision, stated that, if it were her decision, she would withdraw France from the contest due to poor results. This leaves the door open for a potential withdrawal from France 2 as the French broadcaster. Source: http://wiwibloggs.com/2015/05/24/lisa-angell-my-failure-injustice/96401/

Callum Nowacki (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Snowstormer | Talk &#124; Contributions 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

French participation
French TV has announced that the diffusion of Eurovision next year is not into question : http://www.letelegramme.fr/monde/eurovision-france-2-dement-arreter-la-diffusion-en-2016-24-05-2015-10640130.php The comment of Nathalie André shows only her opinion. France 2 made the best audience on May 23 with 4,5 million viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.51.68 (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

France is confirmed
http://www.chartsinfrance.net/Eurovision/news-97350.html

"Que Marie Myriam se rassure, France 2 fait savoir que la délégation française participera bel et bien au prochain Concours qui se tiendra en Suède en 2016, puisque c'est le candidat Mans Zelmerlöw qui l'a emporté le 23 mai avec son titre "Heroes". En savoir plus sur http://www.chartsinfrance.net/Eurovision/news-97350.html#IA7CWi0zBrPcTrjR.99"

France 2 has noticed that the French delegation will be in Sweden. Wikays (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015
Vaksdal123 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Switzerland is competing in the 61 edition of Eurovison Song Contest in 2016 in Sweden.

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=2016_eurovision_song_contest_whats_next


 * ❌ My interpretation of the source is that it doesn't confirm Switzerland's participation, it's more of a broad statement of when Switzerland normally has a national selection. In the comments, there is mention of their participation, but comments aren't usually reliable (unless they are written by someone reliable). We should wait until the Swiss broadcaster officially releases confirmation, or a reliable source confirms. – Hshook (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)