Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eurovision Song Contest 2013 at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Eurovision High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why does this article refer to the Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia? Shouldn't this country be referred to as the F.Y.R. Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), as that is what the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) call it in the contest to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia? A1: Previously the practice on Eurovision Song Contest articles was to universally refer to the Republic of Macedonia as the F.Y.R. Macedonia, as this was the name the EBU used. However, this practice was overridden by wider community consensus established at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). The current guideline establishes Macedonia as the general term for the county throughout Wikipedia, even if the article is about an international organisation which uses a different naming practice e.g. the Eurovision Song Contest. In Eurovision Song Contest articles the inclusion of the flag for the Republic of Macedonia and the context of Macedonia being listed with other countries makes the risk of confusion low. However, the term F.Y.R. Macedonia, as it is used in the contest, may still be reported once in individual Eurovision Song Contest articles as necessary. See also: Macedonia naming dispute

Poland have confirmed: http://www.eurovision-spain.com/iphp/noticia.php?numero=8202 (EurovisionSpain.com) -- 89.131.62.71 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been previously rejected on grounds that it contradicts information from the broadcaster that they would make a decision in October and an apparent statement on their official Facebook page that they had not yet made a decision. Overall, the sources' reliability is in question. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that we can do to stop this barbaric reinsertion of Poland using sources that are either prohibited due to their obvious fan blog status, or sources that have already been discredited as unreliable? So far we've had ΤΔΚΑ251001 (talk · contribs) use this fanblog site; and more recently Mopje18 (talk · contribs) reinserted the already discredited source. And to add more confusion to all of this, one other website states that Poland won't be retuning in 2013, while OGAE Poland confirm that no decision has been made yet. My proposal merely for this particular perplexed case is that we wait for more solid sources either from TVP, Eurovision.tv, ESCToday, or ESCDaily to outright confirm Poland's decision (whatever it may be). Wesley♦^Mouse 15:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, not only since a blog is a self-published source and should not be used, they are also non-English sources, which does not help their status. We should wait for one of the WP:Eurovision reliable sources. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says TRT will organise a meeting with some famous Turkish artists just to ask their opinions about who they should send on 2nd November. Not an official date to announce the singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.194.58 (talk • contribs)

The article says that 34 countries have confirmed for 2013. However, on the map there are 36 countries confirmed. If France and Spain are not confirmed, than the map should be changed and France and Spain should change colour from purple to grey. Now, if the two countries mentioned are confirmed, they should return to the confirmed finals table again. /Hollac16 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one to be honest. The map itself is also used on other language Wikipedias. Even though here at English Wiki we have established the sources for France and Spain to be dubious, the other language pages still include them including the dodgy sources. If we're to deselect France and Spain on the map, then we'd need someone to visit our counterpart Wikipedia's and remove France and Spain from their articles too, while informing them in their respective languages as to why they are not being included at this present time. And sorry to say, I'm not that knowledgeable in that many languages. This will need some team work to let the other Wikipedia's know of the situation. Any volunteers!? Wesley♦^Mouse 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirilloparma did it for it.wiki; I suggest to remove however the countries from the Commons Map, linking the discussions in en.wiki for more information. --Gce (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to other projects is worth a go but if there is a dispute, commons:COM:NPOV states that Commons's does not attempt to resolve it i.e. if there is no agreement, multiple uploads of the file are the only real option. CT Cooper · talk 11:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found other sources for Spain and France (from es.wiki): one and two; what do you think about them? --Gce (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are the two that have been discredited (see here). The only compromising solution that I can see if we place France and Spain into the "other countries" section for now, with those two sources. Because it was only one editor that stated they are unreliable, and yet we have nothing solid enough to confirm they really are unreliable sources. As long as both are place in the other section, then we've found a way around the map, plus we are able to state what the sources are saying, while at the same time be able to also add that no official decision has been stated yet. But obvously without making us sound like we're reporting news. Wesley♦^Mouse 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Serbia has confirmed (according to this article), Spain also confirmed because the reliable source used to Serbia (http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/8/post/2012/05/switzerland-serbia-and-ireland-confirms-2013-participation.html) is eurovision-contest.eu and there is another source of the same website that confirms the participation of Spain (http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/8/post/2012/05/next-countries-has-confirmed-2013-participation.html). JoseDLG (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoseDLG - see #Please discuss: Are France, Romania, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey actually confirmed?. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking this section of the discussion, and said that the source of Serbia is reliable(http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/8/post/2012/05/switzerland-serbia-and-ireland-confirms-2013-participation.html). Therefore, because as in the same source of Serbia, Spain is cited as confirmed (quote:"The full list of confirmed participants for now, looks as follows: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland."), Spain should be added to the list. JoseDLG (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better and more recent (as well as reliable) source has been found confirming France and Spain. Article now includes them. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to kindly argue the validity of the sources for France and Spain (Eurovision Times). I don't think it's as credible as some other websites, as far as I know, it is a blog and relies mostly on other sources, but doesn't cite the original source on numerous occassions. I think it they might have been following the informal reports of countries saying they would be participating in 2013 immediately following the 2012 contest. Dfizzles (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EurovisionTimes were established months ago as NOT being a blog, and have been used on other annual pages for the last few years that I have noticed. And if they are also relying on other sources, then that is an advantage not a disadvantage, as we are able to verify that EurovisionTimes are producing factual truth by checking who they are citing within their news reports. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It was a bit misleading to me because on the description of site, it clearly says it's a fan blog. Dfizzles (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well they all are when you think about it, even ESCToday. They are all companies providing news in a blog-like format to fans of Eurovision. But what it all boils down to is these sites providing accurate and reliable news, and not fantasy make-believe. Every new Eurovision-news website needs to start off sometime or another, and over the years there will be new websites created to provide the same Eurovision news. Ultimately we should be welcoming these new websites with open arms, as it gives us as editors other sources to use, rather than having references from the same website. Wesley♦^Mouse 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a pile of ESCDaily.com citations are now showing as dead links. Upon checking their website it appears every article they have every published has vanished into thin-air. As of yet there has been nothing reported as to why this has happened. One can only assume based on ESCToday and Eurovision.tv being hacked into a few months ago that ESCDaily may have become victim this time. Please could we be vigilant to this and keep an eye on any developments regarding ESCDaily. Thanks Wesley♦^Mouse 17:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their front page works but the news archives seem to have been "emptied" - it may be a technical fault but another hacking is not implausible. In any case, I think it needs to be asked that editors don't start mass removing links to ESCDaily and related content, to allow for the possibility of the links coming back online. The template {{dead link}} will be enough for now - for older news stories a link to the Internet Archive might serve to fix the issue and is good practice for any source - this can be done by adding archiveurl= to templates such as {{cite web}}. CT Cooper · talk 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! Their archives and all other content has been restored. Strange though that their team haven't released a statement to explain what happened. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Executive producer Martin Österdahl has announced that there will be just one presenter for the first time since 1995 and has made some other statements surrounding the production values of the contest ("more intimate setting", "move away from the recent tradition of huge LED video screens", etc.), in an interview to Dagens Nyheter (Source: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5312493). Should these developments be mentioned in the Format section of the article?Xelaxa (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be the ideal place to put it yes. But personally I'd word it in a way that doesn't make it come across to the general viewer that this decision has been "set in stone" but more along the lines that they (SVT) have suggested that this may happen, as we all know from previous years, what they brainstorm and what actually happens nearer the time have always been two different things. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESCToday have just reported the same news. Wesley♦^Mouse 10:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurovision website itself now has an article relating to it: [1] -- MC95 15:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like SVT really do want to lower the costs and do the contest cheap-budget. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact further articles about SVT's intended approach and ambitions on Esctoday [2] and the Eurovision website [3], using an SVT.se article as a source. Could someone please summarize these ideas in an appropiate way in the Format section? I don't think I have the neccessary skills to start with it.Xelaxa (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is peanuts really, but I miss an explanation of the green colour to the map description now that the Netherlands have been coloured green. Best regards Aejsing (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 about to fix it - whoops when Netherlands was turned green, nobody updated the infobox to include the key code to explain what green means. Basically, yellow = withdraw/not participating; purple = confirmed; and green = selected either song and/or participant. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonian daily newspaper Vest published an article in 15 October 2012 about the upcoming edition of the annual music festival Skopje Fest. On many occasions until 2011, this festival served as the national selection process of Macedonia for the Eurovision Song Contest (referred by its abbreviation ESC in the rest of this section).

The aforementioned article states that the Skopje Fest 2012 will be held without any involvement in Macedonia's process for selecting a participant for the ESC. Moreover, it cites the statement of Ljupcho Mirkovski, a member of the festival's committee, who reports that the model for selecting the entry for ESC will be decided after the end of Skopje Fest 2012, in late November.

This means that the participation of Macedonia is confirmed and the country should be added to the list of participating countries in this article.

ESCMKD (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well with what you have written you have actually stated the opposite and that it shouldn't be listed as confirmed yet. You pointed out that Ljupcho Mirkovski states a decision will only be made after the Skopje Fest. So that alone is only a presumption and not a definite yes. Only definite confirmed should be listed in the table, not "um-ahh maybe, we're still thinking about it" statements. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't restate the article well enough, but I would like to point out that Ljupcho Mirkovski stated that MKRTV is uncertain about the selection process to be used, and not about the participation in Malmö. If they were still undecided about the participation of Macedonia, why would they make a statement to the public that they will be looking for the way of selecting the participant? Nevertheless, I can understand that this kind of statements can be too implicit to be counted as an actual confirmation, therefore unacceptable for Wikipedia. At least, I can suggest you to include Macedonia into the list of other countries where Italy and Poland whose participation (or absence) is not confirmed yet (but their officials made some sort of statements about ESC) are listed. ESCMKD (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be the idealogical place yes. Wesley♦^Mouse 21:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esctoday have reported that the Irish final will be on the 22nd February.

Source - http://www.esctoday.com/?p=38109&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.19.158 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Thanks. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and France will also competeng! On the Swedish Wikipedia it will be writen so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.68.97 (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See #France and Spain -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.eurofestival.ws/2012/10/23/ufficiale-litalia-sara-in-gara-alleurovision-2013/

This website was considered reliable last year. --SimoneMLK (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like RAI confirmed on its official ESC Facebook page. --SimoneMLK (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Someone add them to the confirmed table. But forgot to remove them from the "other countries" section too (tut tut). Anyhow, fixed it now. Also the ref used was not tagged properly, so had to fix that as well. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "thirty-five" to be corrected in the first paragraph, too. :) --SimoneMLK (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding calendar to the article would be good idea. Svwiki is also doing it, and I think it's pretty good. --Olli (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars of that nature are not of encyclopaedic value, and are enticing potential vandalism to them. Plus they have been removed in the past. If you wish to have a calendar of events then create a fanblog, but don't be doing on an Encyclopaedia. Thanks, Wesley♦^Mouse 12:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Svwiki is thinking to be honest - calendars are clearly beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to provide a summary of known knowledge on a subject primarily written in prose from a long-term historical perspective, not provide a noticeboard of tables for fans. They also go against the general principle derived from Wikipedia:Recentism, which if it isn't a permanent addition to an article it shouldn't be added at all. CT Cooper · talk 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps maybe use this as a solitary source? Spa-Franks (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But its been established Spa that they don't hold a purpose on an encyclopaedia. I pointed out one problem if we started to include them, and Cooper explained in more detail why they are prohibited. So its a clear no-go area I'm afraid to say. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we could use that in the already established tables, we did last year? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly AxG. The only bit of vital and relevant information is when an artist and/or song is being selected, which is factual to the whole thing anyway. Do we really need to keep an account of semi-finals or preliminary rounds of each respective nation selection taking place? The general (and unfamiliar) reader will most likely want to just know about the contest, who is representing which country and with what song. And probably when that selection decision will be made. No need to go over the top! Like they say, less is more! Wesley♦^Mouse 17:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already show on the participation table when a national final is taking place. The main articles cover the finer details surrounding the national selection process, along with dates of each round (if any). Wesley♦^Mouse 17:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could that Calender source link be used for the main article to compile some of the sources into one? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was last year, so I don't see why not. But obviously only to cite the dates that are in the participation table lol. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was insinuating originally. I'm sorry if I caused confusion. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, record companies along with ERT are working together for Eurovision 2013.

http://www.escflashmalta.com/index.php/music-news/international-music-news/item/2070-greece-early-rumours-for-eurovision-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.120.191 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says "It seems that the collaboration between the record label (Universal Music) and ERT will continue", not a confirmation yet. Xelaxa (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nrk doesnt seem to be ready to admit it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source what would confirm your words? Kirilloparma (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it isnt public knowledge so far and until nrk is willing to reveal it there isnt any sources. i suggest that norway is put on the list of possible withdrawals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources, the information is not verifiable. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Xelaxa (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so, you will rather ban than listen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, will the IP remain civil at all times to Wikipedians. Secondly, nobody mentioned anything about banning, so where on Earth did you get that idea from? Thirdly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia as you will have noticed by now. Every piece of content you find on the millions of articles are voluntary contributions from a community of editors. Content needs to be cited using sources found on the internet to provide verifiability to the content, so that the general reader knows that we are providing factual evidence and not make-believe stories. You have already stated that NRK haven't published anything on the internet, and therefore without that proof we cannot verify that what is being told is true or not. If any editor added content based on original research then they'd be violating the core policies of Wikipedia and thus putting themselves under sanctions of bans etc. Do you really want to jeopardise an editor by demanding they publish your original research which would be in a violation of WP:NOT#OR? Now until there published evidence from a reliable source to confirm what you're telling us here, then Norway will not be placed as a withdrawal. Besides, we no longer have a section headed as "Possibles", as that is speculative header. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and with two sources contradicting your theory ESCXtra and NRK informing the ever reliable ESCToday that a national selection is underway, then what you are reporting here is pure make-believe. A national broadcaster would not go to the financial troubles of a national selection only to withdraw from the contest. Now please, end this charade and get back to proper editing. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it too much Wes, this Norwegian user has been known to me for a long time, and has also posted threads speculating that Norway will withdraw in previous years. I have never seen the user respond constructively to requests to provide evidence for his/her claims, with the best example of this being the long running campaign to remove all reference to Oslo from the ESC 2010 article on a spurious basis - see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010, the FAQ, and the archives. While I do even now try and follow WP:AGF with him/her, there is a pattern which points to these threads being driven by a grudge against NRK. CT Cooper · talk 23:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont hold a grudge against nrk but i dont want them to spread lies either. the fact remains however that they wont release any information this year so they might hold a national final but they most likely wont participate. as for eurovision song contest 2010 it was actually held in bærum and i know because i was there. i am always honest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me IP user, but may I suggest that you have a read at WP:TPG and learn how to use talk pages properly for starters. You always seem to be adding your comments directly in line with other editors, rather than starting on a new line. Also you have never signed a comment yet. I've had to manually sign the last 3 messages on your behalf. Please in future end your comment with ~~~~ before posting it. Thank you.

Now in regards to what you are saying, you state NRK are spreading lies, yet there is nothing to back up your opinion here. So in all reality, it just looks like you're spreading lies, as you have never yet provided a source to confirm what you are saying. Now if there are no sources out there, then I strongly advise you to drop this barbaric episode, and concentrate on other areas. Wesley♦^Mouse 03:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP may be "anti-NRK" here, but on the 2012 page we had speculative messages about them being confirmed. We have a source here saying (from NRK) that the final will be on 9 February, with "new" hosts. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a new rule for the running order. Can someone please add this information in a correct way: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=running_order_malmoe_2013_to_be_determined_by_producers /Hollac16 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]