Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I recently deleted the content of this page, but a recent IP edit by

) 15:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Your claim that the EBU could cancel the competition is the actual

WP:FUTURE Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Junior Eurovision is a notable regularly scheduled event and is almost certain to take place. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] }

15:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, it is indeed extremely likely to happen, or maybe at least it'll warrant an article if it is cancelled like the

talk

) 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would hesitate to refer to most of these sites as just "fan sites." They are considered reliable sources by WikiProject Eurovision and are more or less just Eurovision-centric entertainment journalism. Most sourcing for Eurovision events comes from these sites in the same way that most sourcing for an election will come from political journalists. But as to your other point, Junior Eurovision 2021 is notable because Junior Eurovision as a whole is notable and the 2021 edition is almost certain to take place. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

True, they are reliable, but that's not the only criterion for notability. I still would not call this "significant coverage from independent sources". Elections get far more attention from more different news sites that have far more reach, and therefore become notable more quickly.

Also, I have a question for you. The 2022 edition is also almost certain to take place, and the 2023 edition is too. Why would only 2021 warrant an article, or why would 2021 be more certain? ―

talk

) 16:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that an event scheduled for less than a year from today is more likely to occur than an event scheduled further away. We're sure the

WP:TOOSOON. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] }

16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so what information about the 2021 edition do we have that we don't have about 2022? Why is 2022

talk

) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just look at the article: we have information about 2021, we have no information about 2022. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Having information about it is not a criterion of

talk

) 17:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "armenia":

• From Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019: "Armenia: Only nation considering to host Junior Eurovision 2019?". eurovoix.com. Eurovoix. 22 November 2018. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
• From Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020: "Armenia withdraws from Junior Eurovision 2020". Junioreurovision.tv. EBU. 2020-11-05.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved. It was the one from the 2020 article. ―

talk

) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Since France is going to host JESC in 2021, why aren't they up among confirmed countries? Claus98 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh someone just put it up. Claus98 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is there something that says 'the contest will take place in 2021' on the article? Claus98 (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Good catch; I removed it. You are allowed to

talk

) 12:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenia's head of delegation wrote on Instagram saying that the country will be back "stronger than ever". This implies that Armenia will indeed return to Junior Eurovision. Now that France is hosting the 2021 edition, I'm very sure Armenia will return all thanks to the strong relation with France. Meanwhile, Belgium's French-language broadcaster RTBF withdrew in 2006 and has yet to show interest again. 108.52.8.76 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A strong relation with the host country is no guarantee that a country will compete. Also, we're not here to interpret posts on social media. This is plain

VRT has made a public statement concerning participation in the 2021 contest. ― Ætoms ^[talk]

23:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

But David Tserunyan said Armenia will return "stronger than ever". Therefore, Armenia's withdrawal isn't permanent. 108.52.8.76 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the withdrawal is not permanent, but we still don't know how long it will last. ―

talk

) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The war ended on November 10, 2020. 108.52.8.76 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Over the last few days the page keeps getting vandilized and they keep reverting without explanation. Could we be able to ban him from editing this page?euro1234 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eurovision1323: I've requested for the page to be semi-protected.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs)

Can someone please explain what is meant by “established consensus” when it comes to returning or withdrawing nations? TG4 has already confirmed that Ireland will return with a national selection so I don’t see the point in waiting for the EBU to state the obvious and reconfirm their participation. I understand that COVID-19 may change this, but my point also applies to over countries who plan on returning or withdrawing too. Bbt400 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2021 (GMT)

I mean the consensus that was reached on the JESC 2020 talk page last year. In short, including this information in the infobox before the final list of participants is published may be misleading: the infobox is supposed to provide a short summary of the information, and the reader might see "Ireland" and believe that only Ireland is returning; or that the information is definite, when the contest is still months away and Ireland may decide not to participate (which is what happened in 2020).

Feel free to start another discussion if there's something you want to say that wasn't brought up on the JESC 2020 talk page.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That reason is why people on the regular Eurovision page puts the words “to date” in brackets next to the amount of countries that has confirmed its participation so far. Surely that makes more sense to do it here too? (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2021 (GMT)

We've stopped doing that for the regular Eurovision pages for the same reason.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

People have repeatedly put Italy in the list of participating countries, citing this source: http://eurovisionplanet.com/italia-confirma-su-intencion-de-volver-a-eurovision-junior-2021

The title of that article appears to confirm the participation, but the body contains this quote:

Es muy pronto para pensar en lo que pasará con el Festival Junior 2021, pero esperamos, por supuesto, poder volver a llevar a la delegación italiana en este concurso.

I don't speak Spanish, but according to translation machines it means something like this:

It is too early to think about what will happen with the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, but we hope, of course, to be able to return to lead the Italian delegation in this contest.

I believe that this is unambiguously not a confirmation. That they hope to return doesn't mean they will. So I am curious as to why people keep adding Italy to the list. ―

) 13:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hopefully the protests in Armenia die down soon. I miss Armenia at Junior Eurovision, and I want to compete in 2021. 108.52.8.76 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the source for Spain is good enough to put it in the list of participants, as it clearly states that the country will participate. Whereas Italy (as mentioned above) only says they are intending to participate. If others disagree, please tell us why. ―

) 11:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Armenia recently pulled out of

) 12:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone added Australia to the list of participants with a Portuguese source. Which is not a problem but iam not sure if this implies the participation of Australia. Let me know! Don't delete it for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.249.132 (talk) 06:50, 2021 April 7 (UTC)

You're right, it does not even mention 2021. It should be removed. ―

talk

) 11:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting this discussion to avoid a potential

) 11:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@

) 11:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@

) 17:58, 2021 April 7 (UTC)

Maybe a fair compromise would be putting this sentence at the bottom of the provisional list of participants section?

The national broadcasters of Bulgaria^[1], Italy^[2] and Kazakhstan^[3] have stated that they intend to participate, but have not publicly confirmed it yet.

It does not take up much space and it is far more encyclopedic. ―

) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@

:

Yes I think it’s a good idea to add the information in your way . You are right about the space that the section takes up and it’s not like we created the articles in other years so I think we need to stick to your idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka maas (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2021 April 7 (UTC)

@

) 13:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It does not need to be said at all. The information that sentence said can be mentioned in each of the individual countries' sections in the Other Countries section. Not to mention, "considering returning" (such as in Bulgaria's case) does not mean "intend to participate," as that sentence suggests. Upon looking at the source for Italy as well, they also do not say they intend to participate, just that they hope to be able to come back --- not at all the same thing. Kazakhstan is obviously a different case, but their section in Other Countries sums up their situation perfectly, they say they want to participate but need a special invitation. Above all, if a country "intends to participate" then they are a provisional participant. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Belgium isn't Yellow on the map. euro1234 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's explained in the Other Countries section. Although it's true that the Flemish broadcaster

talk

) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Why do we render jesc fan page "Eurofestivales" as non-reliable while at the same time we tend to put sources that most of the times mention Eurofestivales as the initial source? I closely observe jesc for many years and Eurofestivales are the first to provide jesc-related news that are afterwards confirmed by other sites (Eurovoix, Escbubble etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurofan2000 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have someone review that source and list it at

talk

) 17:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I just want to say that non English sources (like ESC Portugal) are fine, but I think it's much more useful to the average person reading these articles to have reliable English sources (like Eurovoix) whenever available; this is an English website after all. — TheThomanski | t | c | 17:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Belarus be officially yellow on the map, since the two weeks have past? 84.208.142.131 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspension does not per se mean that they won't participate; maybe the suspension gets lifted before the event or maybe another broadcaster steps in or something. Although I heard that today there's new news about them being expelled though so maybe a source can confirm that they are officially out. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Well looking at the source, it still doesn't confirm that the country is withdrawing. I think we should play it safe and not draw conclusions, but simply describe what the situation is in the other countries section. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone recently changed the Netherlands link to go to

) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Junior Eurovision 2021 Logo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that this is not at all noteworthy enough to be mentioned here. It happens all the time that broadcasters say things about their participation months in advance that later turns out to be incorrect (another example is Albania this year). Wikipedia isn't here to speculate whether or not a country will return, it just reports the latest information. (Also, Ukraine in 2018 was different because they actually joined after the deadline.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@

). Of course I know that they all contain at least Dutch and English, but that's not what the table says right now. It says that the song will be in Dutch and English, period. The only correct thing to say here would be "At least Dutch and English but maybe more languages" but that would be far too long for the table, besides being completely pointless. This is also the reason why the returning/withdrawing countries are not put in the infobox before the complete list of participants is announced; we don't know in advance if this will be the full list or not, and presenting a partial list as a full list is misleading.

Also, "I fail to see sth wrong with my edit so I'm undoing it" – please don't do that. That's not a way to resolve a disupte, that's only a way to start an edit war. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so it's important to seek consensus. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: It's not a way to start an edit war, more like being realistic I'd say. There is not any mistake in my edit, this is also done in adult esc before an entry is announced quite frequently (e.g. in internal selections when info is being given, languages included for instance) and was also done in past jesc contests. So what's the problem being done there too? This languages will be in 100% as I already mentioned and we can just add Japanese shall this entry wins at the Dutch nf. ―Dealer07 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

With "a way to start an edit war" I was referring to your editing behaviour, not your edit itself. I have all the adult ESC pages on my watchlist but I do not recall a single time when someone added languages before that was announced (maybe you have an example?). You say "what's the problem being done there" but I think I already explained that twice? What is wrong with my explanation? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Since I already provided adequate explanations my editing behaviour cannot be considered as "faulty" just bcs it doesn't happen to coincide with yours. Anyways, I clearly recall in Eesti Laul after the sf took place and songs which all contained English (with 1 or 2 containing also lyrics in other languages) had qualified, the former one being mentioned before the final took place. Plus, in Hooverphonic's entries English was announced and written as a language prior to the presentation of both of their entries. ―Dealer07 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to read some of Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines and policies, such as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Consensus. This is not about whether or not you have a good reason, this is about the fact that you're trying to force an edit through while it clearly got opposed, and about you assuming that you are correct until proven otherwise. That's not how any of this works.

If there is a reliable source that confirms that the song will be in English, as was the case here with Hooverphonic, then I totally agree that it should be put in the table, because then it is certain. I do not know what edition of Eesti Laul you are referring to; this year there was at least the song "Magus melanhoolia" in the final which was not in English, and I haven't been able to find the edit you're referring to. Also, I don't want to start repeating myself, but I still don't get how "Dutch, English" is not misleading. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Opposed by who? U are the only one constantly undoing it, I didn't see anyone else around there. And yeah, we can at least agree on the fact it's just a mere repetition since these languages will be included eventually. I accept your opinion but let's hear the one of other editors too before concluding on the final version, shall we? :) ―Dealer07 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Opposed by me...? Someone reverting your edit is a pretty good sign that said person opposes your edit. Of course getting a third opinion is often good but there's no reason why we can't resolve this ourselves. Also, if your really want to wait, the

WP:STATUSQUO should remain (the only reason why I didn't revert you again is to prevent an edit war, but that seems to have cooled down now I hope). ―Jochem van Hees (talk

) 00:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You can do a more thorough research and see it was enforced many times in the past both in esc and jesc wiki. Anyways, let's just leave it as it is and we put Japanese if the relevant entry is chosen. Dutch will be 1000% in per jesc rules and I can't see English being removed, usually the NL add more in the live stage (see 2019) ―Dealer07 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not how disputes are resolved. Did you look at any of the links I gave? Either we resolve this now or we bring it back to what it was until it is resolved. I don't mind a constructive discussion, but I do mind it being stonewalled. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It is late now there and the link u provided doesn't make sense. It just directs me to a page with some wiki rules. Anyways, how do u want it to be resolved? I already suggested waiting for other editors' opinions which is rather sensible, what is your opposition on this one? ―Dealer07 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What you call "some wiki rules" are relevant guidelines. I'd be perfectly fine with waiting to see if others want to bring in their opinion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Okaaay, no need to get offended though :)) then I think we concluded on this one and till sb brings an opposition there is no need to make any relevant changes when it comes to the languages. ―Dealer07 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dealer07: for over an hour I have been tyring to explain Wikipedia's edit warring policies to you, and you apparently still fail to understand it. The only solution I see remaining is to head off to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please tell me you're going to make it easier for the both of us. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No need to understand sth since I suggested waiting for other editors' opinions BEFORE changing my version. Yet, you still seem to disagree on this one. May I ask for the reason? (And don't resort to the easy way btw, if u think your arguments are correct what is the need to involve others in it and not pulling an effort just by yourself?) ―Dealer07 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have explained why I disagree with you earlier, but that really doesn't matter for this. What matters is that your edits have been opposed and that this dispute was never resolved, we only agreed to pause it. I'd also like to remind you that we've now hit the three-revert limit, so we can't revert one another's edits anymore. So either you revert your own edit or we seek dispute resolution. I hope you understand that I am running out of patience. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah so we just concluded to what I suggest for an hour now, didn't we? And the fact ur running out of patience doesn't highly bother me tbh, I'm not the one having the issue there but you. ―Dealer07 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I think I made myself pretty clear. Either we resolve this now or we bring it back to what it was until it is resolved. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Too late to bother with this more so just a question before I leave...How this will be resolved since we agreed that we disagree? ―Dealer07 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No we do not "agree to disagree", such thing was never even mentioned in this discussion. Are you purposly completely ignoring the comments you've been replying to? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It was indirectly implied, u don't need to have graduated from uni to observe it. Anyways, since no consensus was made and I fail to see where ur trying to get I leave my version as it is and whoever of the other editors has any disagreement I'm more than eager to discuss for changes anytime (ps Albanian is always being put as a language BEFORE the selection of the respective entry, still fail to get convinced?) ―Dealer07 (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to put a language column in, in my opinion, until the languages are concretely confirmed. As an example, we know about Junior Eurovision's language rule so we could in theory add every language required in the language column, but it can be misleading as there can be other languages in the song. Just putting 'Dutch, English' is misleading because Ayana's is in Japanese as well and could be selected. Also, more languages could be added to songs after selection, and we just don't know. It's just best to leave it until concrete confirmation. Granfcanuon (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Still disagree though since in Fik Albanian is always put as a language before the final even though acts may state they will change it to English shall the win. Furthermore, these languages will feature 100% and there can be a source provided for that one, can't see what is wrong about my argumentary. ―Dealer07 (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Plus, with that logic none language should be added even if a song is selected since more and more languages may be added till the final day of the contest. Germany last year sung a version with different language proportions with those of the rehearsals and Moldova in Esc 2016 was experimenting with adding French again in the rehearsals, nevertheless English were mentioned as a language from the very first moment the latter entry was picked. ―Dealer07 (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between putting down a language after a song has been selected and before a song has been selected. With the FIK issue, Albanian is usually put done AFTER the song has won, and it is in its first state Albanian. If the song is revamped, then it is changed to whatever language it becomes. You are proposing we put down languages BEFORE the songs have been selected, which isn't very smart at all. Also, mentioning one incident from 2016 holds no weight nearly six years later. And I'm sorry, but you have a history of destructive edits, and you asked for "whoever of the other editors has any disagreement I'm more than eager to discuss for changes anytime". I am another editor, and it is clear that you won't back down.Granfcanuon (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No, since anything can change till the contest. It's exactly the same if we follow this logic (referring now to yours). And why, is there a deadline anywhere for the incident I mention? Or you just skip it just bcs it's not good for u? Furthermore, edits presenting opposing opinions to other ones≠destructive edits, it's not my fault if you confuse them or if you were given misleading info by the other editor. ―Dealer07 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just gonna stop now. You are just being rude and stubborn. It's clear you won't back down even though you are in the minority here. Granfcanuon (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably transaltes into "not having any other arguments to express" so why not calling the other person bad names? Anyways, column of languages will remain, even empty since that also applies for the commentators' one that already existed prior to my addition. Dealer07 (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have not given Granfcanuon any info about anything. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not long ago I saw that the link to the English language was removed. I understand why and am fine with it, but I feel like this opens up a discussion on whether to remove all links to English across contest-related pages, as on every single ESC or JESC contest page where a song is English, there is a link to English in the languages column, even in recent contests like ESC 2021 and JESC 2020. I'm also wondering as per the rule whether German qualifies to have a link, as the language is well known. At that point, I'm not really sure at what point the de-linking would stop - does Spanish qualify? French? I don't know. If there could be some further explaining of this I would really appreciate it. Granfcanuon (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point. I vaguely remember this being discussed before, and after some searching I found

MOS:OVERLINK, but also it would be really weird if some languages are wikilinked and others aren't. ―Jochem van Hees (talk

) 10:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the people in the discussion did appear to agree that English didn't need to be wikilinked (though as you said, it was vague), but English is still linked across all related articles. Would it be safe assume that we can remove them all now, or is it too minor to be an issue? Also, the discussion seemed to come to the conclusion that languages that are not English should be linked, which I agree with personally. But yeah, should we remove the other English links? I personally don't mind either way, I'm just not sure if it's a big enough deal to change all of it. Granfcanuon (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that it might also be because a bunch of people keep adding the link back. But yeah I guess the older pages should also be changed, although there really is no hurry. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gyshei, Tomls10, Granfcanuon, and ESCfan123: let's discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring over it. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies on reliability, nor do I speak Armenian, so I don't know if this source is reliable. But I don't see why this one is different from other sources we use on Eurovision articles? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how reliable the source is, but I do know that the source is not affiliated with ARMTV, it can thus only count as a rumour. The article also states no sources and basically says: "according to our information Maléna will participate in JESC 2021". ARMTV has to confirm it themselves or else it's not actually certain that Maléna is participating this year, although I must say that it is very likely that she will participate. ESCfan123 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

AsESCfan123 previous said : neither the broadcaster, Malena herself or David & Anushik (the HoDs of Armenia in Junior Eurovision and Eurovision) confirmed it. Plus, the website that people use has source tends to post alot of fake news it didn't mention any sources at all. It also appears that the website isn't armenian at all. But once again, even if it's very likely that she'll represent the country, such informations shouldn't be posted until we get further trustable informations. (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2021 (CET)

Since I am not familiar with the reliability of Armenian news site, if it needs to be removed then do so. The reason I added the citation is because they even confirmed that Tokionine would be composing the entry, which feels too likely and specific to be fake. I would like to rebuke ESCfan123 here, though. We do not always need to use sources from the broadcaster for the information to be true. On multiple Eurovision years in the past and in the present, reliable sources not always affiliated with the broadcaster are used. If the Armenian news site is not reliable, I support removing it. However, if it is reliable, it should stay. Simply saying that it is a rumour because it's not affiliated with ARMTV is false. But once again, I do not know whether the site is reliable or not, so if it isn't, remove it. Granfcanuon (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So, when Olena Usenko participated in the Ukrainian national final, their song was called "Vazhil". When they won, and the JESC YouTube page published their winning performance, it was called "Vazhil (Leverage)". Now, on the JESC participants page, the song is referred to as just "Vazhil". Since the 2020 Ukrainian song was referred to as "Vidkryvai (Open Up)" on the participants page, should we change the song title back to just "Vazhil"? I'm not really sure, so it would be helpful to have others weigh in here. Granfcanuon (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we have this discussion like every year lol. My stance is that the way the song gets presented at JESC should be what counts, so let's follow the title that the website uses. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@

) 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Not an issue for me whichever way you wanna do it, I just remember being told off by a user (don't remember who) for capitalising a song that did not have an English title. Granfcanuon (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Gus was meant to go for Australia in 2021, it is rumoured JESCFan11 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know one of my close mates from SBS said but I dunno JESCFan11 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks but I think he might’ve been messing around though. Thank you! JESCFan11 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

dunno if this is reliable, but bulgarian media is saying the artist will be revealed this thursday: https://www.monitor.bg/bg/a/view/objavjavat-bg-talantite-za-detskata-evrovizija-v-petyk-288353 Insaneguy1083 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know JESCFan11 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@

) 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: I already told you on the comments I read ones below with other editors also suggesting to include the English language link. The disagreement was again with you involved, so how can one say the decision was "unanimous" just bcs 2 users were ok with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LefterisA (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@LefterisA: I didn't say unanimous, I said consensus. It's true that the other discussion on this talk page included only one other editor, but the one at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2021/Archive 1#English language link was held with many members of WikiProject Eurovision, and I was certainly not the only one there (in fact I contributed very little to that discussion). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Still, that discussion concerns a different page. Plus English language link exists at most (if not all country-related info articles) so still cannot see the reason of us refraining from its mention. LefterisA (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@LefterisA: there is no reason why that wouldn't apply to other pages as well; the discussion was about the use of English language links in these tables in general, not an issue specific to that article. Yes a lot of articles still include the link, and also a lot don't, and that's simply because there are just way too many articles to update. If you read through Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2021/Archive 1#English language link you can find many reason to exclude it, but if you have an argument that wasn't brought up before I am happy to reconsider. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Have provided already many but wikipedia has anyways links to things that may seem apparent to one person but to another may not. In addition, I noticed on the discussion a suggestion to keep the links to only most uncommon languages, still only the English one was removed (not that this is a suggestion of mine, just saying).

@

MOS:OVERLINK also says that other common languages like Spanish shouldn't be linked, but then it gets muddy because how do you decide what "common" is. I think only not linking English is a workable compromise. ―Jochem van Hees (talk

) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: That's just your point of view as you already said. With the same logic, French and Spanish shouldn't be linked either since they are spoken by a large margin of people worldwide. Anyways, why do we have to make it such an issue for just one extra link? It isnt like false info is provided or sth.

@

MOS:OVERLINK and these discussions). My hope is to eventually get this promoted to a good article, and then the reviewer will certainly nitpick about these kinds of small things. ―Jochem van Hees (talk

) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: You admitted yourself it's "small things". Since this is commonly reverted by other editors too, why do you keep insisting so much, especially given it's not about a big deal as you already said?

@LefterisA: I think I just explained why? The only other person I recall removing the link was Dealer07, who is blocked for edit warring and abusively using multiple accounts. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: AdamantiosK and many unregistered users have also did as I noticed from the research I did so that's not true.

@LefterisA: Well if AdamantiosK wants to weigh in as well on whether or not to include the English language link then sure. This is not a head count though; you have to actually have good arguments (and for the record, "ah it's just a small issue why not" is not an argument). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: I dont have time to occupy with this more, especially given the fact you are going to insist in your opinion no matter how many argumentary I may provide as it seems. What you agreed with the other editors concerns another page as I have already said and the "consensus" there was taken by just you and another editor so one can't really say it was a consensus. LefterisA (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@LefterisA: okay, which arguments exactly did you give specifically for including the link? The only thing I found is that you "still cannot see the reason of us refraining from its mention". For the rest you've only been saying that it's also there on other articles (which, again, is not an argument) and we've been talking about past discussions about this. That's literally this whole conversation. If there is some magical argument that I have skipped over this whole time then I apologise. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: And there begins the point the other starts being sarcastic, probably bcs of lack of arguments. What I said about the other articles is an argument, if you fail to admit it just bcs it does not suit your opinion then sorry but i cannot do something for this. (Btw by it existing in other articles -and many ones besides- means the majority of the editors are ok with it. LefterisA (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@LefterisA: I wasn't being sarcastic (okay, maybe a little bit), I legitimately want to know if I missed anything. Because it's true that it's very unhelpful for a discussion if arguments get missed. Regarding that particular one, the reason why I discounted that as an argument is because it simply doesn't say anything. The fact that something is X does not at all mean that X is good, and my opinion is actually that the link should be removed for all of those articles. (I actually have been doing that for quite a few articles already, I just haven't taken the time yet to do it for the rest.) Also, there could be any reason at all why people didn't remove the link. I also didn't remove it until over a year after I started editing Eurovision pages. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

just few words name for french host / Last winner and spoke person dont forget Surname of our great girls in same order Carla Lazzari / Valentina Tronel and Angélina Nava thanks for editing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.131.3.14 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)