Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017/Archive 1

New voting system
Why do we have a section on the new voting system on this article, when it's mostly to do with 2016? --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  01:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I removed the information as it implied that it was a new voting system for 2017. Anyone can re-add it if they feel it should be part of the article, but then I suggest changing the tone of the section to imply the second year of using the system or similar.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit suggestions
I can't edit page, so here are few suggestions:

- Sentence "It will take place in the winning country of the 2016 contest." should be replaced with phrase "It is expected to take place..". If Australia won, contest would be held in Europe (per conditions of their invitation). - Dates in infobox should be amended with "(preliminary)". - I believe that voting rules in infobox might be against Wikipedia rules - it is not yet confirmed that this year's voting system will be preserved for next year, it is just presumed and therefore I believe that we should wait for official confirmation (i.e. rules of ESC 2017, or statement from EBU) of this.

--95.105.237.99 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Turkey
According to this link, the nation of Turkey is returning after quite some time; However, from what I can translate, it is only a mere quip at the end of the article. Should this count as Turkey returning? --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should add Turkey as a returning country until either the EBU or TRT publicly and explicitly confirm that the country is returning. In the past years, various websites have reported that Turkey would be returning only for the broadcaster to state that there were never plans to return. However, this information could be included in the "Other countries" section. Pickette (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Norway is likely to participate
Norway always participates unless there is a protest. (in 2002 they were relegated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.73.96 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A source is always needed. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  15:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * makes a change that this IP is now stating Norway will be participating. In the past years they tend to say Norway will withdraw.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  08:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Spain will be in ESC 2017
Source: 83.39.88.20 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Spain confirms
Spain confirms participation: http://www.vertele.com/noticias/tve-admite-su-disgusto-por-barei-y-pide-a-eurovision-nuevo-sistema/ Zimhuh (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016
RuslanEULazarski (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  20:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine and Russia tensions
Eurovoix are reporting that there are already tensions between the governments of Ukraine and Russia. Obviously something of this nature gets noted in an article. But (and there is always a but lol) I am not sure where to put the information. Do we put it under "Hosting" or "Format" or "Incidents"? Suggestions folks!  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  08:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would most likely put it under Other Countries as of now because Russia has not confirmed her participation for next year. If Russia participates, then I would put it under Incidents, but if they withdraw (which, to me, sounds very unlikely), it should be left in Russia's section of Other Countries. That's what I think, at least. --PootisHeavy (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Bulgaria has confirmed participation.
Bulgaria confirmed its participation via BNT's twitter acount: https://twitter.com/bg_eurovision/status/732290830153748481 Thomasfan22 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And we cannot use Twitter as a source, sorry! Rules on self-published sources prevents this. That is why the content has been removed 3 times already.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Israel
Even though there's no official statement about participating, Doron Madalie (the writer of the last two songs of Israel) said that he won't stop until the Eurovision will be brought to Israel once again, according to this article: http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/382681 from "Israel Hayom"

Also, there are reports that there will be a 4th season of "Hakochav Haba" in Israel, a competition where the next Eurovision performer will be selected. I will look for a reliable article and post it when I'll find it.

Israel - Edit
There's a registration for the next season of "Hakochav Haba La-Erovizion" on the official site - http://www.mako.co.il/tv-the-next-star/sign-up Israel apparently will participate in 2017. Please update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.38.112 (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Netherlands
May I just ask one thing? On the given reference, and as far as I could translate it, the article only states that this girl band wants to represent The Netherlands. But I don't see any part of the text where it is said that they actually will take part. Thanks for answering Yoyo360 (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * indeed you are correct. The source only states they wish to represent The Netherlands. It doesn't say that AVROTROS have selected them.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the country, not the band. But I should have be clearer in my phrasing. I don't see where it is mentioned that AVROTROS will participate in fact. I may just get a part of the text wrong but I don't see it. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation #36 from ESCXtra has content that mentions Netherlands provisional participation at ESC 2017. So maybe using that instead would be better?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This could be a better option, given that not everyone can speak Dutch and translators give us now so good translations... But even escXtra states that there isn't any official written conformation. Which is a little bit of a paradox. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at what citation #36 is citing, that being Bulgaria which is in the 'other countries' section, then I would be inclined to move Netherlands to the same section using the same source, and stating that official confirmation from the broadcaster has yet to be published.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think this would be the best thing to do Yoyo360 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and made the changes anyway.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  18:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro
There has been rumours that Montenegro might not paticipate in 2017, saying that whether it is worth to participate in this event. Heres the source: http://eurovoix.com/2016/05/20/montenegro-withdraw-eurovision/ Thomasfan22 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rumours are just speculation. However, there is nothing wrong with is being added to the other countries section, in which we would be able to say that there are reports that Montenegro may withdraw from the contest due to X, Y, Z.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  15:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is though, on the article, the Facebook post in question is not available (atleast on my side), so I would not include it as a source. --PootisHeavy (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dnipro
Change Dnipropetrovsk into Dnipro as the city names nowadays. Smthngnw (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Israel confirmed
Israel has confirmed their participation in the forthcoming Eurovision Song Contest Sourch: http://eurovoix.com/2016/05/26/israel-confirms-eurovision-2017-participation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.206.64 (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

United States
Should the current source really be used as a source that the United States may participate? After reading through the article, it seems rather subjective and like the writer simply made their own conclusions. It doesn't really seem reliable? — 87.208.34.89 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems more like speculation than an actual possibility. I'd say remove it. Anyone else's thoughts? { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  14:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say keep it there for the meanwhile, as when there was speculation of Australia's début in 2015, it was listed under the 'Other countries' subheading until SBS announced their participation. But since there is really no sources to go along with this, either from Logo TV or any other US broadcaster, I would understand if the info was omitted from the page. Just my opinion. Rodger42 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I say, keep it for now. It is a possibility. Its not more or less likely than lets say the Kazakhstan participation etc. It is sourced and if nothing comes out of it in the next few months we can remove it. That is my take.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jon Ola Sand confirmed there is no plan to invite US to ESC. Since he's executive supervisor, the head of whole contest, I think we can consider that as confirmation that US will NOT participate. Source: https://youtube.com/video/yNT9W4zdcX8 (EBU & SVT press conference in Stockholm during Eurovision Week). I therefore suggest removing that part from article or amending it with Jon Ola Sand's statement--2A00:1028:8386:794A:8BB:D3C6:767E:D91F (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
I think this is enough to indicate a withdrawal, isn't it ? http://eurovoix.com/2016/05/30/bosnia-herzegovina-bhrt-suspend-broadcasts-june-30/ Yoyo360 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. Greece's broadcaster shut down one or two years ago and they were able to get a new one into the EBU fast enough to compete that year. We can't just assume this won't happen to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  10:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC) true. if bosnia does get a new EBU member in time like greece did they might be able to participate after all.84.212.73.96 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

United States as Associate EBU Member?
In the current article, The United States are listed as non-members of the EBU alongside Kosovo, but according to the official EBU website's list of associate members, http://www.ebu.ch/about/members?type=associate, the U.S. is on equal footing with Australia and Kazakhstan having three television stations with associate member status. Broadcasters like NBC, ABC, and CBS are on the same level in the EBU hierarchy as SBS, the Australian broadcaster of Eurovision. Should the United States then be listed under the heading, "Associate EBU members"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.20.13 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They are down as a non-member, as it is uncertain as to which broadcaster would participate, if they were to be invited. Logo TV broadcast the final this year, and they are not an associate member.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  06:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you may wish to have checked this talk page before making this decision. Especially as my edit summary did point out that Logo TV are not an associate member. So a different network that is an associate member would have to be invited to participate. And as the source doesn't stipulate any broadcaster, then we are not to undertake original research nor be crystal balling.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the United States is a country with broadcasters that hold Associate Membership, I'd be of the opinion that they would belong on the same rung of the ladder as Australia and Kazakhstan i.e. as an Associate Member State. Australia also have multiple Associate Member broadcasters, so there was the open possibility of any broadcaster taking on the responsibility of participation, but ultimately SBS took on the baton.
 * The only other non-member currently listed, RTK in Kosovo, doesn't have any sort of EBU membership, and neither does any other broadcaster in that state, therefore Kosovo is a non-member state. I moved it on that basis. Bearnard O&#39;Riain. (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, America has associate members. However, Logo TV, who broadcast the 2016 final, is part of Viacom Media Networks, who are not an associate member. Of those that are listed as being an associate member in the States, it would mean that should USA take part, then a different broadcaster would have to participate, such as NBC, CBS, and American Broadcasting Company (ABC). Not one of the sources states that any of those listed associate members have expressed an interest. Therefore because there is a source about Logo TV, then we would list the USA as a non-member, until one of the other networks expresses at a later date. But this whole USA taking part is fan-speculation because of the fact that "it happened for Australia, and so it should for USA".  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While Logo TV isn't an associate member of the EBU their corporate cousin CBS is an associate member. While Viacom Media Networks and CBS Corporation operate as separate entities they are majority owned by the same parent company National Amusements. It is a common place to have a niche cable channel to air the contest like Logo TV if (and I mean big if) the United States is invited to participate National Amusements would either shift the contest to CBS in its entirety or split the contest between Logo TV and CBS either as a simulcast or have Logo TV air the semi finals and CBS air the finals. CBS Corporation also has a secondary national broadcaster, The CW they could shift the contest to in the event the United States was invited to take part.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  09:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "cousin corporation". There are terms used as "sister channel". But certainly none such as "cousin channel". Logo TV are not listed as being an associate member by the EBU - quite simple is that!  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's just roll back to the 2014 and 2015 contests. When Australia were invited to perform in the interval act in 2014, there was nothing noted that it was being seen as an invite to participate at future contests. In 2015, it was stated that Australia were being invited as part of the 60th anniversary. Again, nothing was added to say the performance the year prior was an indicator of actual participation. So why is now that just because Justin Timberlake was an interval that it is being "rumoured" (and I add emphasis on rumoured) that they will be taking part as a fully-fledged participant in 2017. Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't be acting on rumours, it is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Are we forgetting that Timberlake's song was written by Swedish people? That the movie is scheduled to be released very soon, so the performance would be seen as promotional. Let's not be getting ahead of ourselves here. Learn to walk first, before trying to run a marathon. I honestly think this information should be in the 2016 article, that his performance is "rumoured" to be a possible indication of participation of the States in future contests. But adding the "rumour" to the 2017 article is going a bit over-the-top.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  10:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Monaco return
Who say that Monaco return in Eurovision? Lasks (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Incidents Section
Should the Neo-Nazi thing really be included here? Oikotimes isn't exactly a reliable source and the actual article says nothing about Eurovision 2017, only including Eurovision in the headline. Overall, it seems a bit speculative to me as well. { [ ( jjj  1238 ) ] }  13:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oikotimes shouldn't be used anyway for citing material. So the section should be removed entirely based on this.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  13:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The cited article concerns gay pride festivals and has nothing to do with Eurovision. This section should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.68.197 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

could someone write an article on the swiss selection
i am not very good at writing articles and therefore would be a bad choice. eurovision.tv have information on it though.84.212.73.96 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a case of possibly too soon at this stage. We generally wait for further information before creating an article, so that it doesn't become nominated for deletion.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  23:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Lorenzo representing Spain in 2017
I've seen this video where she says she will represent her country in the next edition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQjvU9ATcxU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimhuh (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we are unable to use a YouTube clip as a means to provide citation of information, due to copyright rules. We would need a reliable published source that is in written context, so that we can attribute any changes.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.eurovision-spain.com/iphp/noticia.php?numero=9449 92.58.158.245 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This was a statement she made 2 years ago, and also that's absolutely no confirmation that she will be participating this year, just that she'll think about coming back in 2017. When the Spanish broadcaster announces that she's taking part, then she'll be added. Right now it's just outdated speculation. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  16:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

(No) bid for hosting in Uzhhorod
So instead of continuing an edit/revert war, I am bringing this thing here for discussion. The article mentions Uzhhorod as one of the bidding cities to host the event. The reference is http://eurovoix.com/2016/06/03/esc17-uzhhorod-wishes-host-eurovision-2017/ which itself refers to a website called Le Charcan http://lecharcan.com.ua/yevrobachennya-2017-projde-v-uzhhorodi/ - a Ukrainian/Transcarpathian satyrical website that makes up funny news. If you know Ukrainian, or especially if you are from Uzhhorod, you will understand from the article that this is a joke. There were no official calls from the city government to bid for hosting. That's also the reason why the page in Ukrainian https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%96%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81_%D0%84%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_2017 does not mention Uzhhorod in its list.

Let's be more critical about our sources! 'S e r e g e l l y  talk 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Ukrainian article again, it does loosely translate as if Uzhhorod have been selected to host, which is a bit strange when other cities have bid and no decision by the EBU and NTU have been made. So perhaps this content should be removed based on that benefactor.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  10:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

greece seem to be participating
the source is however unreliable so a better source is needed. they seem to be selecting demy internally.84.212.73.96 (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Portugal's one year absence
The first one year absence of Portugal was in 2013, not in 2012 as the article states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.124.173 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to just refer to their most recent absence. It seemed unnecessary to me to mention that they withdrew previously in the context of the 2017 article. Pickette (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

there is changes to NRK which could affect its participation in future contests
it is no longer going to be a public broadcaster but a paid channel. each home will likely need to subscribe to nrk specifically. there is only about 5 months until the contest so the changes will not affect paricipation in 2017 but there is no article for 2018 yet. http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/8803977/84.212.111.156 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry too much about that article. The same gets reported every year, and becomes proven to be false reports. Norway's participation is not in jeopardy. Wes Mouse Talk 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

not this year but this could their last year participating.84.212.111.156 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Crystalball exists for a reason. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  19:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Why include 'Debuting countries' section in the infobox when there are none?
This applies to multiple articles, not just this one. It's unnecessary and just looks messy, why include the section when it does not apply to that edition? You wouldn't do it with any other part of the infobox so why that? Imo it should go back to simply not including 'debuting countries' or 'withdrawing countries' unless there actually is a country to put there. --ThatJosh (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dihaj as a backing vocalist in 2016
I've removed this again. Diana Hajiyeva was initially announced as a backing vocalist for Samra but she was replaced by Swedish vocalist Anna Engh in the lead up to the live shows. These sources document Anna Engh as the backing vocalist:. Dihaj wasn't part of the team that was on stage either. Pickette (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

NAVI's name
How should we write NAVI? There have already been several names as NAVI, Naviband, NAVI BAND etc but which should be the permanent one? AdamantiosK (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Typically in Eastern countries "group", "band", "duo", etc gets added to the end of the group's name during national finals, but then by Eurovision time they return to the real name. I don't know why this is but I've seen it so many times. They have been called simply "NAVI" on nearly every Eurovision site besides eurovision.tv, so maybe just wait for some clarification. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  15:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Botë" or "World" ?
The title of the Albanian song had been changed from "Botë" to "World" but no source was given to support this. One reference included a list of the FiK songs with English translations, but these seem to be literal translations of the FiK song titles. All we know for sure is that the version of "Botë" going to Eurovision will have English lyrics, but the song title - if indeed it will be changed - does not appear to have been confirmed. It seems to me that the song title should remain as "Botë" until the title for Eurovision is confirmed by a reputable source. Thoughts? Robyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Czech Republic/Czechia
Should the Czech Republic be changed into Czechia? I think not since it's just an abbreviation and not the official country's name (yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamantiosK (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already reverted the change, because the cited source was dated April 2016, and the Czech government and the UN have still to agree on implementing the official change. And also we need to make sure we are following Naming conventions (geographic names), just like we do for Macedonia and not F.Y.R> Macedonia - per Naming conventions (Macedonia).  Wes Mouse  T@lk 14:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The proposed guidelines:

Czech Republic is the usual name in English for the country and hence the appropriate title for the main article per WP:COMMONNAME. However, the   alternative name "Czechia" is also used by some sources and editors may reflect that too. Editors should not change Czech Republic to Czechia or vice versa except to provide consistency within an article.

fom here .Lacunae (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article should use the Ukrainian spelling of the host city
since it is a ukrainian city and not a russian one it should match the ukrainian language.84.212.111.156 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article uses English language, hence it uses traditional and widely accepted spelling of the host city. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the archived thread. It was established that Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) comes into play here, which explicitly states Kiev Oblast, not Kyiv Oblast; and Odessa Oblast, not Odesa Oblast. We have the same policy that we must strictly follow in regards to Macedonia, per WP:NCMAC. Wes Mouse Talk 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

it makes no sense to use the russian spelling after so long. ukrainians could be insulted.84.212.111.156 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You refer to the naming conventions, the wording regarding Kiev (not oblast) is:

Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv, this usage is not common. For this reason, write Kiev, which is a transliteration derived from the Russian name of the city, and not Kyiv. Which cites the reasoning behind this convention as being that use of Kyiv is uncommon, this may no longer be true, as I and other users have found examples from mainstream media who use Kyiv, including the logo used in the infobox. I accept that Kiev is presently dominant in English, though there appear to be political dimensions involved, which are insufficiently addressed by this policy.Lacunae (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

i just noticed that the official website uses the ukrainian spelling and as such wikipedia should as well.84.212.111.156 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not Russian, it's the common name in English, beside its also insulting for others to say how we spell a word English. Besides per Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) nothing is changing. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This BBC Eurovision blog uses the spelling Kyiv http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/eurovision/entries/9ced8ad0-73ed-4765-b5e4-d26a82f25670 I do think the article could include an explanation, even if to clarify why the logo in the infobox says Kyiv, while the article uses Kiev.Lacunae (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the Ukrainian-language spelling, you should use Ukrainian-language Wikipedia. This is English-language Wikipedia, so we use English-language spellings.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but I would like consistency of use in an article, and if not, an explanation.Lacunae (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Oh, and it's not the Ukrainian language spelling, it's the transliteration, which does have a degree of political sensitivity.Lacunae (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tasmania?
For some reason, Tasmania is missing from the map of Australia. Is it possible for someone to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.83.160 (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Map should be back to normal now. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations in lead paragraph
There are two CN tags in the lead paragraph, and unless I'm very much mistaken, leads don't need citations? Eurovision Song Contest 2012, which has GA status, does not. Spa-Franks (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also now noticed, then saw your comment. I removed the tags, which may meant to state "fact" as it appears when I checked that edit in an edit window, as well as that edit's summary: "minor clarif", however appeared as "citation needed". In any case, also "fact" isn't needed; left an edit explanation that it's all extended, with sources, under chapters. אומנות (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)