Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1981

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:ESC1981.jpg[edit]

Image:ESC1981.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the Yugoslavian song[edit]

Someone wrote that the yugoslavian song was performed in Bosnian language, which is not correct. In 1981, the bosnian language did not exist, as the official languages of Yugoslavia were Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Slovenian, and the song was performed in Serbo-Croatian language, as it was officialy called in that time.

Future tense context[edit]

This RfC is closed. Outcome appears to be to allow details regarding a particular annual ESC, regardless of when they were published; as long as they are relevant to the topic at hand and can be verified with citations. Other discussions regarding locations were also raised, but are still an ongoing debate at WikiProject Eurovision. Wesley ☮ Mouse 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should an article that is covering an event that happened in a particular year also make references to events that happened several years afterwards? In my opinion this would be "future history" as nobody would be able to know if something would happen in years to come, and thus an event article would need to be written in the the perspective of that particular year or prior to it. Wesley ☮ Mouse 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can we include context written in future tense format? OK we know now that the contest has never been as early as April. But if it were 1981 now, would we know if something were to happen 32 years later? It would be like writing on the 2013 article that such and such a record has not been broken until 2045. We wouldn't know that until the year 2045. Trying to guess that something would happen in the future is very clearly crystal ball gazing. So the same ruling should apply in this case. Which is something that I was told a few times before, that an article needs to be written in a manner that speaks of that particular year and before, not future tense. Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. All events are written from a modern-day perspective. Why would we pretend it is still 1981? This has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. Information is added as it becomes available and is kept up to date. It is not 1981, nor 2045, it's 2013.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is not nonsense. Event articles are not written in modern-day perspective, they are suppose to be written in the perspective of that particular year. This issue has been raised several times in the past by other members of the project. Off memory, it was stated that no Eurovision article should speak in future tense other than the article of an upcoming contest. If an event happened in 1981, then it needs to address information regarding the event that happened in that year alone, and may reference any historical facts that happened prior to that year - not beyond it; as that becomes "future history" and from what WP:CRYSTAL states, that is point 3 of the guidelines, which is suppose to be avoided. Even the Olympic articles only concentrate on the year in question or prior to it, they do not mention any historical facts that happened years after that event. Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've seriously misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL. That policy only prohibits unverifiable speculation about future events. Saying, for example, that "the RDS would go on to host the next Irish Eurovision production in 1988" isn't speculation, nor is it a future event. It's verifiable information about something that happened in the past. It makes no sense at all to write this article as if it were 1981, and I'd be astounded if, as you claim, a consensus to that effect really has been established by WikiProject Eurovision. Can you provide a link to the relevant discussion? DoctorKubla (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this deletion also for the 1974 ESC article (for info that mentions "future" Celine Dion as most succefull winner alongside ABBA, when I went through some ESC articles) with this up to the current event-year claim, and I was also susprised and interested to see this previous discussion for writting from prospective of that year. Guessing-predicting can only be in regards for something that has yet to happen from our current present, it can't apply for something that is relatively-futuristic to an event but in itself is already in our current known past. Also, this specific 1981 info refers to something that happened before-during the contest (messing some country's songs-rehearsals) with only the claim itself being voiced (by the Danish singer) after the contest. The best example for that can be found on 1968 Eurovision article with an almost entire section about documentary from 2008 (40 years after the event - about vote rigging allegations in favour of Spain) - another kind of relative-future info and in regards to something that happened before the event, in order to "fix" results on the night of the event. Eventually, the fact that we are years after an event, gives a vital advantage to cover things that even happened after, and were reported after an event: It provides an aftermath prospective of acceptance and criticism in regards to an event, a further valuable-relevent and interesting in favour of the event's article. After all, cheating-discoveries claims and a lot of the criticism are being made after the event - sometimes years afterwards. אומנות (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say that, yes, the articles should be able to mention relatively future things, or talk about new information found after the event has taken place. As long, of course, as it's on topic. I think it would be a useful addition to the Location section, for one. A sentence or two at the end can mention that the venue or city was used again in a future year, for example. Linking the information like this feels pretty encyclopedic to me. As for comparison to articles on the Olympics, 1896 Summer Olympics is a Featured Article and has information on the Olympics returning to Greece in 2004.
Another way that relative future information could be added is through notable future developments, criticism, or commentary that could add encyclopedic information to the page, as long as it is information that focuses on the page's topic. However, I think the addition of Debbie Cameron's comments should not be included in this particular article: It's not NPOV and the source is an anonymous BBC employee. Super fishy, and not very verifiable. Unless more sources that corroborate could be found, I wouldn't keep this on the page.
Also, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here as there is no speculation on events that have not happened yet. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 02:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to DoctorKubla's comment. It isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL being misunderstood. I was told that that was one of the reasons why an annual article should not have references to future historical facts. I was told that articles need to stay focused on its subject/topic. The article subject in question here is an event which took place in 1981. So shouldn't we be mainly focusing on what happened in that event, with the possibility of referencing to anything that may have happened prior to the event if required? We have the mother article Eurovision Song Contest that would probably be ideal to cover content such as "this would be the last time the contest would be held as early as April". To put it another way, the contest has been held in May ever since 1982 to present day. Who's to say that in another 20-30 from now that the contest would eventually go back to being hosted in April? We would not know of this until it happened. What then, do we come back to this article and say "the contest would not be held in the month of April again for Nth amount of years"? In my opinion, details such as that would be more beneficial to the parent article which covers everything like that. This subject matter is the 1981 Contest. It wasn't too long ago that I updated one of the earlier ESC pages and updated the location section using data of the modern era. I was told "ooo you can't do that, the article MUST be written as if it was that year". So please could someone decide once and for all what the hell we are suppose to be doing? To be told it MUST be done one way by some, only to get told months later that that is in fact the wrong way to do things, can seriously discombobulate a person. And for the record, I never said there was a prior consensus held by the project regarding this matter. So where is my "claim" that there was one? All I said was that several members in the past had stated that articles should be focusing on the subject matter for the particular contest year in which it is dealing with (in this case that would be 1981). Wesley ☮ Mouse 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focus is definitely important, but mentioning events related to the topic in discussion wouldn't put it out of focus. However, things like "the contest would not be held in the month of April again for Nth amount of years" might be bordering on trivia because I wouldn't think any reputable source would even say something like that. Also, do remember that consensus can change, so if more people are saying that future events are ok, it should be fine. It doesn't mean the previous people who said that it's not ok are wrong (even if I think they are), but that the general opinion from a majority of editors has changed. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do appreciate consensus can change. I am always one for change, under reasonable circumstances. But the point I'm trying to make is hypothetically, if we were writing this article in 1981, would we have known some of the details that would potentially follow years down the line? That we wouldn't. Although sure, if something is mentioned years down the line, it probably would be good to note it in the article. But perhaps at that particular time in regards to notable changes, or even on the mother article, or relevant article(s). Another way around it could be to have an "aftermath" section, for which any details that do get reported years down the line could be incorporated into there. Which then would keep the main article in focus of its subject, whilst also adding any notable facts that happened post-event. Wesley ☮ Mouse 09:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I also participate at the "Location" discussion on Eurovision Project talk-page, I might know were there have been a confusion of mixing two different things: On that "Location" discussion, it's explained that only facilities that were in a certain location during and prior to a Eurovision contest, might be relevent to function as reasons to choose this location and not other locations that naturally submitted bids before the contest. So also naturally, a location's modern day facilities that didn't exist during the hosted event, don't give another prospective-angle about the contest so they simply don't contribute to a past contest's article-subject. On the other hand, a cheating-discovery claim or any later-on critisism after a contest, is therefore still in relevance to the contest and as in the cases mentioned above - about something that happened during-before like those tries/succeses to fix the results on the event's night, and therefore to be mentioned in the article as another contributing prospective-angle about the contest.
Regardless, I agree that it's quite trivial to keep track of "this is the last time the contest was on X month", as Mr. Gerbear said, while an established criticism and cheating-claims (which are the main point here) are very notable. In regards to this specific 1981 info of fixing results verification, if Mr. Gerbear says it needs to be checked then that's another issue. Eventually and generally, a relative-future criticism is both relevant and notable to an event's article - as long as it's known-sourced and made at least some bits of media-waves. Post-event details aren't deviating from the article's focus. There is the info about the competitors, info about preperations-organization and info about aftermath - all give an equally relevant informatin from different angles, and just should be seperated to different sections. I agree this aftermath informtaion should be described seperately from other kinds of info, and this is already the situation on this 1981 article and I think on other articles. This also relates to what I said on the Eurovision Project RFC - that I support putting such informatin under a section called "the contest in public and media" with this kind of details about songs and results acceptance. אומנות (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose using a heading such as "the contest in public and media", as it is overly ambiguous. A header needs to be precise to its topic in question. Hence why we have "location", "participation", "results" etc. The suggested version would leave things open to interpretation, and when we leave things open, they are bound to get vandalised; and that isn't helpful. I'm slightly confused though why the location debate from another talk page is being raised here, when this RfC isn't in connection with location; it is about including "future" details. Would it be possible to maintain focus on the question at hand rather than deviating away from it. The whole reason this RfC was initiated is because I removed a sentence which reads The 1981 contest was held on 4 April and up to (and including) 2012 has never been as early again. For one it isn't verified with sources, and two it is overly trivial. Alas though, when I removed it I was told "no it doesn't", and thus we are here discussing the matter. Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason your edit was reverted was not because you claimed it to be trivial, but because you argued that no future information should be included. You seem to be changing your argument here (by the way - the statement doesn't particlarly need a source since it's uncontroversial, if it's trivial then that's another argument). As for an "aftermath" section - it's already there and has been for a long time, but regardless, future info can be included anywhere. I don't believe there was ever a consensus that future information should not be included (and nor should there be) and this applies to any event article - I imagine every Olympics article includes future info. Your RfC has been answered I think.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My RfC has been answered? Sorry, I wasn't aware that someone else could decide if my questions had been answered. And when I mentioned about having an "aftermath" section, I made very clear I was referring to every article and not just this one. And that statement obvious is a cause for concern if other editors above have also stated that it looks trivial in their opinion - the same section which I had also removed as its context was "futuristic" and unsourced. For arguments sake it is "futuristic trivia" and one that cannot be verified unless of course we start adding citations to every contest post-1981, but that would be over-zealous usage of citations just for one thing. And no, my questions have not been answered, as it is clear there are still a few things to discuss, in order to reach a conclusion. And will people stop putting words into my mouth that I have not even used. Where in my comments above did I say there was a consensus? I didn't say any of the sort. I said that I had been told by other editors "a few times before, that an article needs to be written in a manner that speaks of that particular year and before, not future tense". Where in that have I said a consensus was built? Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made the connection between something you had been told on that "location" discussion, as you applied it to your edits and discussion here. You wrote on one of your above comments: "I updated one of the earlier ESC pages and updated the location section using data of the modern era. I was told "ooo you can't do that, the article MUST be written as if it was that year". So please could someone decide once and for all what the hell we are suppose to be doing? I understood you refered to the location-discussion on Eurovision Project that included the 1970-ESC example, and so I figured from there you interpreted that all-kinds of post-event details are forbidden. Now, I agree it's trivial to include information about "when was the last time the event was held on X month". But this RFC is also since you deleted all kinds of future information under your view that we should act as if nothing happened after the event's time, and with that you also deleted the cheating-claim story from the Danish singer. So I tried to clear your confusion by explaining to you and others, according to my understanding, what was specificaly talked about over the location-discussion: Non-existing location-facilities at the time of the location choice for the contest, is an issue that revolves around relevance, not around pre/present/post-event time-angles. On the same scale, criticism and acceptance details play a big role of sheding light on the article's subject, so they are relevant regardless of being post-event. So that was my explenation in regards to your question of when and how we can include relative-future information.
And at your last comment you did accept that certain future-information such as cheating-claims can be mentioned, with you proposing to capture it seperately under it's own section. So you had the note that the "aftermath" already exist in this article (at least as sub-section), and so at this point I related this capturing-issue to my offer for "media/public accpetance" title as another proposal I made. And I agree my proposed title as itself is ambiguous, but I'm only mentioning it for general "section-title" when I detailed-demonstrated an example at the Eurovision Project RFC, were I include specific sub-sections titles such as "Other Awards Titles", "Criticism" and "Incidents" - for the sake of both "country in ESC" and "annual ESC" articles. So this specific 1981-cheating-story from the Danish singer - is such "criticism" or "incidents" informtaion that's appropriate within more general title of media/public acceptance in my view - and that's the relevance.
That's what I meant and how I refered to this two RFC's, following your comments. אומנות (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you may have misinterpreted/misunderstood what I was actually referring to on a few comments that I made. The one you quoted was not in connection to a discussion at WT:ESC. It was actually one of the very earlier articles (1956-1959). So no, there is no connection between this discussion and the one being held at WT:ESC. And I do not recall removing anything regarding the cheating allegations, if I had, then it was a mistake as the content I was removing was the reference to the contest being held in April for the last time. That information which yourself and another editor, have already agreed shouldn't be included as it is trivial. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't matter anyway in which discussion you were told that you can't use modern-data for location; Weather it's from earlier articles or from 1970-ESC on ESC projct talk page (which also included user Drmies explaining that he doesn't see relevance in the location-details also at those 1956-1959 articles BTW). I also wrote at my first comment here that I refer to the Project talk-page discussion, you didn't wrote this isn't the one, so I kept refering to it. The important thing is that all this location discussions are the same basic: Future facilities can't be relevant for location, and that doesn't have to do with other post-event things that can be related and relevant. And yes, if you look at the edit-history page of this article and go to your last edit (with your summery that "as if nothing happened after 1981") you removed both the April-month detail and the entire cheating-story paragraph (as well as another detail I mentioned on 1974 ESC article). So all that deletion with your edit summery, was what user Tuzapicabit objected and reverted. So hopefuly now everything is clear, and yea, I agree with you about deleting the "early April"-kind details. אומנות (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh, I seriously give up. Leave the location debate to the other talk page where it is being held. Having it scattered everywhere else is just going to confuse matters. I think it is obvious I was merely using the location reference as an example to a similar incident that used "future history". You're now bringing the discussion of the location debate from WT:ESC onto here, which in my opinion is inappropriate and unhelpful. And who are you to tell me that it doesn't matter where I was told? It obviously dos matter to me otherwise I wouldn't have raised the issue to begin with. Wesley ☮ Mouse 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As was explained to you by few users - you made zigzagging claims and refered to other ambiguous discussions, that made you change your arguments and got complicated to follow. With that you are the one who raised the location futuristic features with writting you are confused on when and if to use future-relative information. I don't have any interest to spread that specific "WT:ESC" as you already agreed in regards to this and it was solved. The opposite - on my above comments I made sincere efforts to follow your claims. Eventually, on my last comment I simplified via mutual-base generalization of non-relevance to use futuristic-features in regards to any contest's location, as in difference to other post-incidents-criticism stuff that were discussed here as valid. And with that, obviously it doesn't imply in any way lack of consideration for the specific-discussion you refered to - the opposite. This was my try to solve this, which I'm entitled to express without being answered in such a way of "who are you to tell me...", after the time and energy I put in order to try and help, as I also actually enjoyed discussing with you so far. It's unfortunate that so often you don't comprehend others good faith, when you so often tell others to be civil. Think about that. אומנות (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as I was the editor who opened the RfC, I may also close it down if I feel the questions have been answered, and I did just that and added a summary to stipulate that.
Secondly, the template explicitly states NOT to modify the discussion after it has been closed. Therefore I have taken the correct procedure and moved any comments made after the closure to the outside of the closed template.
Thirdly, I found it rather rude when you said "But it doesn't matter anyway in which discussion you were told...". In the way it has been written came across as if you were a parent speaking down to a child, and I found that rather offending to be honest. It felt as if you were saying to me "I don't care, but ha ha you have been told off by others, now shut up and do as you're told". That was just so wrong on so many levels. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was I who said that remark to you, no doubt you too would have took offence to it, and felt belittled. Although I will admit that we are dealing with written context, so all verbal and facial expressions are not seen. Which is something that you, I and any editor on here needs to be extremely careful of. It is very easy to misconstrued a conversation into a negative way, when in actual fact the context may be a lot more polite and softer in tone if you were to have heard it face-to-face. And I would appreciate if you took time to think about what you just said in the last sentence of your comment above, and the way it has been said. It is rather tongue-in-cheek, and comes off as an attack on my personality and cohesion abilities. I have informed you once before that one needs to be very cautious in personalising a comment as you don't know the person to whom you are speaking to, and therefore cannot cast a judgement on their personality. To explicitly say that I do not comprehend others, is a bit naughty of you to say. Would you have said that to someone if you knew they had a disability which effected their cohesion skills? People with Asperger syndrome or Bipolar disorder have social interaction inabilities. So think about that one first before casting sly nasty comments! Wesley ☮ Mouse 12:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, when you open an RFC for barely few days and see ongoing feedbacks from others, and leave such a horrid comment and archiving - you are the one who sais to others "I don't care what you have to add, but ha ha you have been told off...now shut up!" I gave you detailed comments as you said your thoughts were scattered from other discussions. So when I tried eventually to simplify by adressing all location-issues as a whole - You accused me on one hand that I refer to another specific discussion, and on the other hand that I don't respect the specific discussion you had been told. Look how you aren't being cautious with your accusations, look how you complicate-twisting and cause fights. And a case of the shoe on the other foot for you: If you would invest that energy and time on someone that would eventually respond to you in such sly comment and story-manipulation, your head would have already been exploded from frustration and you would have run to other users talk pages to tell how horrible he is. And as I explained to you once about freedom of speech - others have the right to reply and manipulation for trying shuting others won't be tolerated.
Now Second, it's amazing you mention what you did a few months ago when you weren't cautious (again) with talking badly about ""someone"" on others talk pages, presicely with stating you don't have proof they mean harm, without you realizing the negative vibes you spread for no good reason with such poison-tongue; And even though we both know you refered to me and tried to smear me as if I'm a simpleton, I offered you peace but you behaved as if you were the one who got so offended, enjoying your guilt-pleasure. And that's the tip of the ice - you accused another user of "hogging articles" as he updated things you wanted - Wiki-Bullying violation from no less than an "established" project-member! + you attacked and accused him on other articles talk pages and (again...) on other users talk pages while acting as the victim + you told me and others that some of our proposals already caused past-discussions that "gave a headache" (talking about cautious of "courtesy" and "tact"...) And afterwards you don't understand why there aren't enough participants in discussions...
At last, you deflect and jump from extreme of proudly-blunt person that calls "a spade", to the extreme of ultra-sensitivity and kind of emotional blackmail maneuvers when you even just suspect someone is slightly blunt to you. You expect others to walk on egg-shells without criticising you and think 100 times on every word they write to you. You zigzag according to your convenience, on the expense of others integrity. You demand appreciation and respect - from people that you don't give thought to their feelings and their hard work. So now it was someone elses turn to call the "spade". BTW, you don't know me - you don't know if I suffered in my life, you don't know if I have some difficulties and you won't know as I won't publish such things. All of us here are volunteering-contributers with personal lives and issues. The only thing I tell you is that working and discussing on ESC articles was one of those things that made me feel good and now you totaly exhausted and ruined it for me. I also have limits, so unfortunately I give up and done discussing with you. Keep up like this, and you will find yourself working alone. Please try, for your own sake, to ask yourself it you don't see any problem with your behaviour - when several users fhought with you and stay away from you. Think about all this and try working on yourself. אומנות (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your information I do suffer with Asperger syndrome or Bipolar disorder. Are you happy now!? Thank you for making someone feel so alienated. I never wanted to say I suffered with those disorders, as people start to treat me like a freak. Thank you for your insensitivity and forcing me to oust out personally sensitive details about myself. I closed the RfC, because I forgot to add the closed templates after I removed the RFC tag - something which is procedural when closing RfC's. Anyone who opens an RfC is within their right to close it down if they feel the questions have been answered. I felt that was the case, which is why I closed it. You're just jumping into conclusions without assuming good. And you've just openly cast attacks against me personally - do you really think that is grown-up of you or even clever? Wesley ☮ Mouse 18:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what I talked about - you tell private details on yourself as if I made you to do that because I criticised you the same way you criticised me, trying to put more stress on my shouldiers to make me feel distress - which is exactly what you don't want others to do to you. I stayed away from ESC articles for 2 months after what happened months ago. And I never talked about you as not understanding others explenations - but only as not assuming their good faith when they explain something and discuss with you. There were other people that talked about some miss-understandings you had on other discussions but you didn't attack them or revealed personal details about yourself. That's interesting. I just said that you need to work on your behaviour in terms of what you don't want others to do to you, as something you can relate to - precisely because I'v seen you can be kind when you want and because I know you are smart! And with that smart to understand what I'm talking about now. But again, thank you for your tries to make me feel bad for your personal issues. And as I said, you don't know me and others and what kind of personal issues we have, and we are all equal. Remember that. אומנות (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
stopBoth of you, please STOP. This is starting to degenerate into personal attacks and accusations of bad faith without regard to improving Wikipedia. The RfC is over, consensus has been reached, let's move on. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 02:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Gerbear, you are right and I didn't intend to keep this further as now I can move on, it was just something very important for me in order to move on so maybe I can feel I contribute more freely. And thank you too for your spirit and your discussions here and on other places as well. אומנות (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 1981. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 1981. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurovision Song Contest 1981. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outfit reveal[edit]

In the article it's mentioned the mini-skirt reveal on Buzz Fizz's performance. This wasn't the first time it happened in the contest, Germany already did an outfit reveal in 1978, 3 years earlier. In my opinion this should be also mentioned, since the article makes a point about this being a defining moment in the performance and the history of the contest. 80.41.51.190 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards[edit]

The article says it was the first time that the artists were depicted in the city/country during the rehearsals. This is incorrect, this already happened at least in Brighton in 1974. I can't remember if that was the very first time but that already happened then. It is indeed correct that the composers were portrayed in the postcards for the first time. 80.41.51.190 (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_1981&oldid=1201849776"