Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016/Archive 4

Turkey and Ukraine in ESC 2016
There is no official confirmation that these countries are coming back, the rumours for Turkey are the same every year and we all know what happens in the end (no participation). Could you please move these countries to the "possible participation" section? I understand that some of you are crazy about Eurovision and you probably love these ESC nations but try to be objective and learn to distinguish between reliable sources and rumours. Cheers!Chronisgr (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * please learn to distinguish between "official" and "provisional". The section they are under is the provisional list, the official list will not be published by the EBU until later this year. And there is no such section as "possible" as that would contravene WP:CRYSTAL. Also refrain from making personalised attacks to everyone. Calling people "crazy" is unacceptable behaviour, and can lead to a loss of editing privileges.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  14:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also three sources from three different independent and reliable websites that all stipulate that TRT have said they will return in 2016. Also the source for Ukraine verifies that the director general of the Ukrainian broadcaster has said they will return too. That is more an adequate and substantial enough of verifiability from reputable sourcing.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  14:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "crazy about Eurovision", not crazy, mental. Read again. Turkey and Ukraine belong to the list of "Active EBU members", which might take part but there is no official statement yet. Putting Turkey and Ukraine in the same list as the other countries which have confirmed participation does not make any sense. I understand that you want to see them coming back but this is a different issue and you should try to be objective. Even last year there were rumours that Turkey would be coming back, i remember a Turkish singer had claimed he was going to be the singer for Turkey but eventually all of this turned out to be pure speculation. Adding Turkey to the provisional list every year is ridiculous, considering Turkey has no intention to come back at the moment and they did not even show the contest last year. It is too early to talk about Ukraine as well, although a possible participation is not out of question. Yes, they want to return, but expressing the intention to return does not necessarily mean the country will participate. The political situation is not stable in the country (although better than last year) and they have to pay a considerable amount of money. They belong to the "active EBU members" section just like the other countries which have NOT confirmed participation yet.Chronisgr (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are from reputable people involved in Turkey and Ukraine's participation, and both say that their respective countries will be present in 2016. This is showing their provisional participation, which means they should 100% stay where they are.  { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I say I wanted to see them back? No. What I said was there are sources, 3 independent ones for Turkey, and 1 for Ukraine. At the end of the day and is core to Wikipedia, we are to write content that can be verified from reliable sources. As there are sources, then we are following the correct procedures. One could counter-argue your point of view and say that we understand you don't want to see them back. Tit for tat. But removing them like you did, without A) raising your view here, B) taking into account that you didn't even update the infobox, C) the map was still unchanged, and D) if you felt personally that they belong in the other countries section, then full removal like you did, rather than moving the content to the section you felt it better belong, is not exactly following the Wikipedia way of contributing.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you did not follow the WP:BRD procedure correctly. You removed the content, someone disagreed and reverted it back. That is then a dispute in content, which you should have then come here to discuss with the editor(s) who reverted your edit. What you shouldn't have done was revert that edit again, as such action becomes edit warring.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  17:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So I was right, Turkey is not coming back. Next time, find more reliable sources...Chronisgr (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about winning. Even the most reliable sources sometimes claim things would happen which don't, and just because X didn't happen, doesn't in itself mean inclusion of X was wrong. There are many articles on Wikipedia about things which reliable sources thought would happen, but didn't, and rightly so. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we confirm the Czech Republic's return?
Given the source (in Spanish) and this source here, can we say whether or not the country will return to 2016? It wouldn't be surprising if they go further down the path, but these are two conflicting sources on a somewhat dubious claim. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable as nothing is official. Several sources, even from Czech republic say it is not official. Yoyo360 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Liechtenstein and Kazakhstan
There is some information about Liechtenstein and Kazakhstan available:

Liechtenstein - after many unsuccessful attempts to make his debut in the competition (in particular in 2014-2015.), The national broadcaster 1FLTV ready to send a representative of his country in 2016. Liechtenstein. Kazakhstan Kazakhstan - Kazakhstan is negotiating with the EBU on participation from 2010 and eventually plans to take part in the competition in 2016. Kazakhstan. Could someone please edit this to the eurovision 2016 wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart.smits16 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing new for Liechtenstein which is dated July 2014 and does not confirm anything. But still the two countries still require active EBU membership. --  [[  axg  // ✉  ]] 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Liechtenstein Kazakhstan These are the links of information about Liechtenstein and Kazakhstan. This information is already (and from) in several other Eurovision 2016 pages in other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.201.232.126 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources are about 2015, not 2016. At least bring yourself up to date with the years.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Map
Greece is still grey on the map. It should be coloured purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.165.103 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can anyone update the map please? Both Greece and Czech republic mustbe coloured purple and I ddon't know how to do it myself. Thank you. Yoyo360 (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The map was changed hours before you posted this request. It looks like the cache hasn't caught up with the server at commons. Perhaps trying to purge the page will work, like it has done for myself. Or you could press.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  12:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of maps, I have yet to see Andorra be updated, even after maybe a week of the news confirming their non-participation and me CTRL+F5ing like 5 times this past week. Can anyone update it? --PootisHeavy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  [[  axg  // ✉  ]] 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --PootisHeavy (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Poland has to be updated, as they confirmed theyre participation yet there grey on the map. - Thomasfan22


 * There is no rush to get jobs done. Patience is a virtue, especially with real-life priorities. Someone will come along and update the map in due course.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Morocco is gray, however it should be yellow, since they participated in 1980. Alts (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Morocco is grey because they have yet to announce any decision on returning or continuing to be absent from the contest. Once there is a reliable source published to confirm either decision, then the map will be changed accordingly. Changing to yellow now without any sources to verify they are not returning would be crystal balling.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  18:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Australia should be Purple and Croatia Yellow MutatedMan (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When i enter that i in Corner of map it shows right Colours, but on normal map it is still gray MutatedMan (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Germany should be back in purple, no more in Green. Naidoo has withdrawn, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.137.80.245 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The map was updated at 13:50 UTC, but due to cache issues, the image has not refreshed yet. --  [[  axg  // ✉  ]] 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia
http://eurovoix.com/2015/09/14/slovenia-provisionally-confirmed-for-eurovision-2016/ : This is a reliable source to confirm that Slovenia will take part at the forthcoming contest (even if it's provisional) Wikays (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian source
Is someone having a laugh with the Bosnian source? The author is Zeba D. Have we been on the The Magic Roundabout talking to Zebedee, one of the characters?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to change the citation using this Eurovoix one, before someone thinks we've been eating magic mushrooms, whist riding the The Magic Roundabout with Zebedee the jack-in-a-box.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  13:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Armenia
, what reliable source? Eurovoix.com? It writes that style.news.am confirmed Armenia's participation. Someone translated that article very bad in English. The title of style.news.am's article says; "Gohar Gasparyan; "We haven't even confirmed our participation for Eurovision 2016". I'm Armenian and i understand what it says. --Eurofan88 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . If the Armenian source is dubious, yet we already consider Eurovoix as reliable; then the best solution would be to add the content to the 'other countries' section noting that a website has announced Armenia as confirmed, yet an official statement from the broadcaster has not been published. That solves the issue easier.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  16:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the point of it seriously? Some "Eurovision kids" tried to translate the Armenian source via Google. If you translate the title of style.news.am's article via Google it says "We confirm our participation in" Eurovision -2016 "was". Gohar Gasparyan", but actually it means "We haven't confirmed our participation for the Eurovision 2016; Gohar Gasparyan". --Eurofan88 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the point is simple and a fundamental rule on Wikipedia. Everything has to be in a neutral point of view as long as it is cited and verified by a source. Eurovoix are reliable, although the source they are quoting is dubious based on your translation. So mentioning all this and adding Armenia in the other countries section maintains neutrality and covers something that is sourced; but also showing the fact they are not confirmed, just that a source says they are, but the broadcaster alone have not published anything.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I got you. Add it to that section. --Eurofan88 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. According to ESC bubble Armenia confirmed their participation in 2016: source xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurovisionfreak85 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even ESC Bubble state it is rumours. So based on what has been said above, anything on Armenia must be added to Eurovision Song Contest 2016. Because there are conflicting sources circulating, then we must now wait for a primary source to 100% confirm participation, such as directly from any EBU-connected source.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

before re-adding Armenia as you both did, please make sure you check the edit history and this very discussion. All sources used (Eurovoix, ESCBubble, and Wiwibloggs) are quoting the news.am website, and it has been confirmed that Armenian source has been mistranslated. So before we add Armenia again, we MUST have a 100% primary reliable source - whether it be from eurovision.tv, EBU, or Armenian national broadcaster.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  21:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Netherlands and Douwe Bob
This could be our first singer for the 2016 edition. Can there be any more confirmation on this? --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not quite he isn't. ESCToday have reported that AVROTROS are still deciding and will make an announcement in 2 to 6 weeks time.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  21:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

check this out
http://esctoday.com/105843/eurovision-2016-big-5-and-sweden-to-perform-in-the-semifinals/84.213.45.196 (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * They are still pre-qualified finalists. The semifinal performances are probably to give them a fairer chance, as the qualifiers from the semis will have performed twice, whereas the the auto-qualified finalists would have performed once.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015
78.68.22.15 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". --  [[  axg <font color=#4169E1> // <font color=#000>✉  ]] 16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Catalonia" nonsense...
Wikipedia contributors should work a little smarter than to permit this kind of nonsense to even be considered for inclusion in the article. Regardless of the results of the upcoming regional elections in the region, Catalonia will not become independent as international support for the 'process' and recognition of the region as an independent state is practically non-existent; therefore, EBU membership and Eurovision participation is a guaranteed 'not going to happen.' The current paragraph written on the subject seeks to spread out naivety on the subject rather than offer concrete information. The writer should also be cautious when being ever-inclusive ("Catalonia hopes") because it is more than evident that only a portion of the region "hopes" for such a thing. Remember that unbiased does not mean clueless. T.W. (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite any political aspirations, bids like the Faeroe Islands are included in the article and Catalonia is cited in Eurovoix. If we were to remove this content, shouldn't we also remove the Faeroe Islands bid? Also, any decision/change here should also mean a change in the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss the Faroe Islands because my understanding of their situation is far more limited. However, the article published on Eurovoix is a couple of paragraphs all expressing a superficial viewpoint from a single author. Not to mention that the only credited source for the entire story is a Catalan newspaper, and many of these, let's face it, are anything but impartial as many have been known to have been receiving illegal funds directly from the regional government in order to promote certain ideologies and exclude those they disagree with (the same goes for the mentioned television station TV3). Let's at least wait for reliable and impartial sources to make a story out of this, then we could reconsider a brief mention in the article. I should point out that the Wikipedia contributor referred to Catalonia as a "colony" thus revealing their biased standpoint. There should be no room for that here.T.W. (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we should or should not include that and I understand your concerns, my only wish was to point out that we should, in order to maintain coherence, if the community decides to remove, probably do the same with this article and we should also discuss if the paragraph about the Faroe Islands isn't also biased in the same way. I only cited Eurovoix, because it is used in the article as a reliable source and it isn't right to used sometimes as a reliable sources and others discredit it. Again, I want to point that I have no intention discuss if the information on Catalonia should or not be included, since I don't think it's of my competence, but only remember that Wikipedia articles should maintain coherence in itself and with other articles. - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I think the status of the Faroe Islands within Denmark differs entirely from that of Catalonia/Cataluña within Spain. Though defined as a nation within the Spanish state, the title simply implies that together with a handful of other communities, Catalonia is granted a higher degree of autonomy, whereas the Faroe Islands are practically entirely self-governing and just one step away from being de-facto as well as de-jure independent. Still, I've also noticed that none of the international Wikipedias, at least the ones I've looked at, include neither Catalonia nor the Faroe Islands in this list (they do Kosovo as this country is recognized by a considerable amount of nations worldwide), so maybe we should reconsider whether it is necessary to mention it. Both cases seem to suggest mere speculation, of varying levels of plausibility, rather than offer valuable information. Articles expressing the desires of Flanders, Brittany, Occitania, etc. becoming part of Eurovision (and thus implying sovereignty) are not surprising, but they shouldn't be given too much credit.T.W. (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and I agree with both of your views - Catalonia's and other regions reports about current varying autonomous degrees and independence processes are therefore not finalizing this regions status nor are concrete and direct in regards to their ability and thoughts about ESC participation. Tying such reports to the ESC, let alone to an upcoming ESC edition, seems heavily clashing with "Original research" and "Crystal Ball".
 * In regards to Faroe Islands, I agree their status is different on the base of their already self-governing status as well a concrete source for them applying to ESC. However, their case is an application from 2010 without any reported progress but rather talks about the desire and the ability to progress, with its appearance in this specific 2016 article derives from this publication on 9 June 2015; the 2016 edition happens to be the next in line event in relation. The examination of sources for countries status should be directly based on the info as providing information for the upcoming event as feat to a specific year article or something which covers an ongoing process from previous to future years - with the last being the clear case with the Faroe Island reports. This is also according to previous discussions about countries who applied few years ago or didn't participate for years and didn't say anything new in regards to a specific edition. This also includes Morocco and Lebanon appearance in this article as "didn't state anything yet" when the first didn't take part for so many years and the second didn't take part at all and only attempted a decade ago - makes it no different than Egypt, Jordan and other eligible countries. From similar views to yours, my view is that the Faroe Island report from 2015, as well as Lebanon and Morocco, are best to appear only at "List of countries in ESC" and "Unsuccessful attempts" articles. אומנות (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Portugese and Russian confirmation ?
Is there any new?Wikays (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Turkey didn't confirm!
Can someone delete the Turkish comfirmation on Wikipedia? The EBU didn't have a comfirmation from TRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escbelgium (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

http://eurovoix.com/2015/10/02/turkey-trt-yet-to-decide-on-eurovision-participation/ according to this, we should indeed remove Turkey Yoyo360 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015
151.226.81.121 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Montenegrin
 * Highway
 * Highway
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. JustBerry (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Map error
Can someone remove the error from map? Lasks (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What happened to the map? Instead of the map it says "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 56". Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariso Light (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Netherlands
The language of the Dutch song is English (I'm Dutch btw...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.124.173 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian participation confirmed
SVT have announced that Australia will be returning to ESC 2016 as a full participant, therefore having to compete in the semi-finals.