Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Murat Boz - False

I just wanted to inform you that TRT did not confirm Murat Boz or any other artist as Turkey's representative for next year's Eurovision contest. The link that was posted confirming the source is false, as it doesn't state that the Murat will be representingt Turkey anywhere in the article.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmet84 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material, I have not found anything confirming this from a reliable source. WP:BLP policy does apply to material in Eurovision articles related to living people, and where there are resonable objections to unsourced or poorly sourced material it should be removed immediatly per WP:GRAPEVINE. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone added it again. Would someone please remove it. I don't know how reliable this is, but according to Turkish news site Ankarahaber, the Head of TRT's Press Office told them that Turkey will be represented by either maNga, Şebnem Ferah or Emre Aydın and that the final decision will be made within a week.<ref>http://www.ankarahaber.com/news_detail.php?id=50084</ref>--130.226.70.114 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it again, and the editor who added it has been softly warned. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In an interview published today by the Turkish newspaper Miliyet, Şebnem Ferah reveals that she has indeed received an offer from TRT to represent Turkey in the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest, but that she decided not to accept the offer.[1] --130.226.70.114 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Belarus in the ESC '10

Belarusian song has confirmed. Artists are Artyom Mihalenko, Elena & Ninel Karpovich and name of song is Don't Play In Love. There is a source in English and Belarusian 91.156.163.248 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

COME ON!! Put those informations to article page right now!!!!! 91.156.163.248 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That song may have won this edition of this "Musical Court" show, but after ONT failed to reach full membership status in the EBU, the show was re-labeled as aiming to select a song to represent Belarus in any "high-profile international music competition". Thus, the winning of the "Musical Court" show will not necessarily represent Belarus in the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest, although its composer has won a trip to Oslo - as a spectator. This is also what is said in the above mentioned article on esckaz.com.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not adding the information until I am certain it is accurate, and increased use of bold or caps will not change that. The ESCKaz source does not actually say per above that the song that has been selected will definitely represent Belarus in 2010. Another source to more clearly confirm that these artistes and that song are the Belarus entry would be good. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Partcipants

Can now be found at the ESC 2010 website. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=7923&_t=Exclusive%3A+39+countries+to+be+represented+in+Oslo

This is the list:

   * Albania (RTVSH)
   * Armenia (AMPTV)
   * Azerbaijan (Ictimai TV)
   * Belarus (BTRC)
   * Belgium (VRT)
   * Bosnia & Herzegovina (BHRT)
   * Bulgaria (BNT)
   * Croatia (HRT)
   * Cyprus (CyBC)
   * Denmark (DR)
   * Estonia (ERR)
   * Finland (YLE)
   * France (FT3)
   * FYR Macedonia (MKRTV)
   * Georgia (GEGT)
   * Germany (NDR/ARD)
   * Greece (ERT)
   * Iceland (RÚV)
   * Ireland (RTÉ)
   * Israel (IBA)
   * Latvia (LTV)
   * Lithuania (LRT)
   * Malta (PBS)
   * Moldova (TRM)
   * The Netherlands (TROS)
   * Norway (NRK)
   * Poland (TVP)
   * Portugal (RTP)
   * Romania (TVR)
   * Russia (RTR)
   * Serbia (RTS)
   * Slovakia (STV)
   * Slovenia (RTVSLO)
   * Spain (TVE)
   * Sweden (SVT)
   * Switzerland (SRG / SSR)
   * Turkey (TRT)
   * Ukraine (NTU)
   * United Kingdom (BBC)

Hope this helps the article. WestJet (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Telenor Arena

How in God's name could EBU allow Norway to host the contest in that building? It's completely small and the roof is not big enough. The roof cameras will have to zoom out so the stage will look big enough. I just don't get it. It should be a duty for the host country to provide seats for many as possible. The Norwegians will get the majority of the tickets while other simpletons will have to watch it at home, even though they intended to see it in the arena. It was even a bigger disaster in 1999 and 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.72.178 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this page is for discussion on improving the article only, not for talking about the article's subject. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

telenor arena is the biggest place norway holds conserts. i believe that nrk wants it to hold 23000 people. i suggested a bigger place to nrk but they wouldnt listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Telenor Arena does not hold 23,000 people for sure. Belgrade Arena holds 23,000 people, excluding the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.72.178 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) nrk have anounced that there will be 18000 seats per final.--84.208.75.65 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ESC 2011!?

Why is there a link to the ESC 2011 (in the fact box), where the link leads only to the collection page for "Eurovision Song Contest"? /Hollac16 (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Eurovision Song Contest 2011 redirects to Eurovision Song Contest until the host is decided chandler 11:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need that for now? I think we can put that link when ESC 2010 are decided in May. /Hollac16 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone created re-directs from the contest articles to Eurovision Song Contest right up to 2019. This may discourage pre-mature recreation of the article's by requiring users to "override" the re-directs to edit them directly, however you need an account to create a new page while IPs will be able to create a new article from a re-direct, so it could go either way. In any case, the link to next year's article appears to integrated into the {{Infobox Eurovision}} template and so cannot be changed on the article itself. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

stage design

do anybody have any information on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The stage design has yet to be announced, but please be aware that the talk page is for discussion on improving the article, thanks. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 23:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) the size of the stage was revealed in the news on tv2norway it will take up an entire side of telenor arena.--84.208.75.65 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (the norwegian)

Turkey will select their song on 13th March?

The source about this information doesn't have anything about this. 85.103.113.54 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Today disappears the semi-protection

As everyone knows, it is 12 January and today I want to remind all administrators that the semi-protection on this article will disappear now. I wonder if the deadlock will continue? For why the page was locked to anonymous persons vandalized the article. How will you do? I would suggest that the article is locked Until 7 June, 2010, for then the whole event was over + there is time left to fix things (like writing in the past). /Hollac16 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection in the past due to mostly unsourced information being added and reverted incessently. It has been granted with extending periods. There are a number of us keeping an eye out on the article and if the problem returns, protection may be requested again. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With the participants list now out and settled, the speculation about other countries, a cause of previous protections, may no longer be such a factor. I am not re-protecting the page since I am involved, and a request at WP:RFPP is unlikely to be granted without first waiting to see what happens with unprotection. IPs can make substantial contributions to the article, though the article is a lot more "high maintenance" for those watching it with unprotection, and around the time of the contest it can just get out of control. Like Alexander, I will keep an eye on the article for now and see what happens. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

possible withdrawals

it is possible that iceland have to withdraw becouse they are bankrupt. greece is also bankrupt.(or so i read.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, if you wish to create a new section on a Wikipedia talk page please create it at the bottom of the page, see the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Secondly, some reliable sources will be required before such material can be added to the article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Iceland has already started their semi-finals. And Greece has announced their participations for the national final.--Redpower94 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

iceland have a large loan. if they pay that back they will be bankrupt.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk)

bærum not a part of oslo

i once lived near the borders of oslo. (on the oslo side.) bærum is in a whole other country named akershus. (not to be confused with the fortress in oslo.) in many areas a river separates oslo from akershus creating a fysical border. brigdes goes over it.(the norwgian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Greater Oslo Region article Bærum is within the Inner Circle West of Greater Oslo, are you suggesting that this article is wrong? If the article is within Greater Oslo then the article could be adjusted slightly to fix the problem e.g. Telenor Arena, Bærum, Oslo, Norway -> Telenor Arena, Bærum, Greater Oslo, Norway. This is hardly an unusual issue though; if I asked someone in which city the Houses of Parliament were in the UK they would probably say the City of London, though it is actually in the City of Westminster (which is a city within its own right by official designation) within Greater London. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The EBU and NRK seem to consider it Oslo. Maybe you could take it up with them, and get them to change the 2010 logo. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

i have already tried to get EBU and nrk to stop the lies but they ignored me.(the norwegian)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk)

It is unclear though if when they say Oslo if they mean the City of Oslo or Greater Oslo, so clarifying this better in the article would not be problematic. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

greater oslo isnt a place it is just a name used by a former bus company. (it means oslo and akershus) (the norwegian)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk)

Do you have a source for this claim? Even if that is the case, if it is a now an adopted name it can still be used, and even ignoring that there is the Greater Oslo Region which is a wider area which can alternatively be referred to. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

there isnt a greater oslo region it is just a company name but that company doesnt exist anymore. i talked to a friend that agrees with me.(the norwegian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk • contribs)

IP 84.208.75.65, please sign you posts using the button or by typing "~~~~", and make sure you comment on a new line. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the article should only be made based on reliable sources, none have been presented so far, and rather sweeping claims of this sort need sources. A distinction is also made between the Greater Oslo Region and Greater Oslo, of which Bærum is in both - are these both former bus companies? Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

neither the greater oslo region or greater oslo exist. it was just a region operated by a former bus company(used to describe where that company operated.) oslo is the norwegian capital, contained within the county of oslo. you will just need to accept that all of you.--84.208.75.65 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (the norwegian)

What you say could or could be not true as far as other editors and reader are concerned. If you want to make such a statement, you need to provide a reliable external source, not your own opinions or research. The fact is that this contest is being advertised by the EBU and NRK as taking place in Oslo. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

nrk is a tv channel that is untrustworthy. they even lied about who wrote hold on be strong.(the song norway used in 2008) what i am telling is that nrk is a dishonest tv channel. that is their trademark. just read the aticle on bærum. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/B%C3%A6rum --84.208.75.65 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC) (the norwegian.)

The article on Bærum says it is a "suburb of Oslo". The Bokmål Bærum article appears to say something similar, so this is clearly not just a mis-translation issue. Wikipedia functions by verifiability; you are not going to get anywhere frankly unless you provide sources for your claims. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we still having the same conversation? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

you can du a search on sandvika which is the city of bærum. --84.208.75.65 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said earlier: This is hardly an unusual issue though; if I asked someone in which city the Houses of Parliament were in the UK they would probably say the City of London, though it is actually in the City of Westminster (which is a city within its own right by official designation) within Greater London. Just because it is within the city of Sandvika, which is separate from the City of Oslo, does not mean it cannot be an Oslo Suburb within Greater Oslo. The other argument you have been made that Greater Oslo is just a former bus company is unsourced - and sweeping statements like that need excellent sourcing. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

for the last time. greater oslo doesnt exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk)

Well then, for the last time, where are the sources for your claims? Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, neither Greater Oslo nor Greater Oslo Region cite sources. What needs to be proven is that this area exists rather than proving that it doesn't. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not very difficult. There are Norwegian versions of both these articles, Greater Oslo and Greater Oslo Region, and both confirm Bærum being within these areas. I have to say, there is a bit of difference in believability between claiming that Oslo has a region named after it, which is not uncommon such with the example I gave of London, and claiming that despite the existence of articles in multiple languages on these places, that they are former bus comapnies. The only plausible explanation for the places not existing but still having extensive articles, including a copy on the local language Wikipedia showing it is not a mis-translation issue, is either a major mistake by someone or an organised hoax, both of which are unlikely. This is coupled with the fact that the Norwegian articles do actually give sources, example 1, example 2. What source one has to say is of particular interest, "Oslo region has received a special treatment. Unlike the other major cities (centers region) has surroundings of Oslo has been divided into six delregioner." ... "This allows the inner ring has been limited to a few municipalities, which we regarded as an advantage and as a target, given the criteria we had assumed. However, we have received criticism for Bærum alone are in the inner ring to the west. This was therefore a conscious choice, because the population development in Bærum differs from the municipalities farther out." Further sources can be found with a search, there is even a book and scientific journal on the subject. With this level of evidence; I would be very interested in hearing on how arguments that Greater Oslo does not exist can stand up to scrutiny. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

how would you like it if people lied about your country. i am tired of all these lies. the truth remains that greater oslo doesnt exist, end of story.

For all we know, you could be lying, so no, it's not end of story. It has just been proved by Camaron · Christopher that the region exists. If you can prove that it does not exist, your claims would be more credible. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. There is plenty of verifiable evidence for the existence of these regions, while there is no verifiable evidence for their non-existence, hence Wikipedia will go along with their existence as long as that remains the case. My theory to explain the controversy is that the regions existence may not be well known and they are only used by the government, with statistics and professional studies, and perhaps by a former bus company. Hence, the claim that they don't exist. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is that we just need to say that the contest is in "Baerum, Norway". There is no doubt that that is where the venue is and the field in the infobox is for information regarding the venue only. It's not a place to try to explain to the reader that even though the contest isn't being held in Oslo, it's called Oslo 2010. The infobox is a summary, we should use it like one. If you want to say that Baerum is in Greater Oslo, then do it in the venue section of the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't attempt to explain to the reader in detail about the location, it just says where the contest is happening. Slightly more detail is in the lead and even more can be put in the venue as necessary. However, I see nothing wrong with the infobox as it stands now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

County and metropolitan region are overkill. We should just use city and country as always. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Venue, city, and country would be fine. The lead could possibly be cut down a little to match the infobox, with the detailed location in the venue section. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia should just show what it usually show. in this case.(bærum, norway. this link say that eurovision song contest is held in bærum. http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/melodi_grand_prix/1.6982543)--84.208.75.65 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the details on the location in the infobox and lead should be kept to a minimum, more detail can still be put in the venue section. I think it should be emphasized that if this change goes ahead it is due to the requirement that the info box and the lead stick to summarising the article, not because the view that the Greater Oslo Region does not exist has been endorsed. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

the location of the semifinals as well as the finals should say bærum norway. however norway seem to operating with dual host cities this year. 1 city for the parties around eurovision song contest and 1 city for the contest itself. so some areas should perhaps say bærum and oslo.--84.208.75.65 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

error in the money that was anounced.

nrk have anounced that they will spend 211 million norwegian crowns. it was adjusted up from 150 millions. i cant edit anymore without risking my internet connection. please correct the error.(the norwegian)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk)

Could you find a reliable source for this please? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the information was on nrk website last year. though they posted so much there that it disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk • contribs)

I remember the story from ESCToday but never got round to adding it, I just did a search for "krone" and found the article again.[2] -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

13 years of absence aren't enough?

EBU may say all that it want, but last word on participation lays on broadcasters. Italy will be absent for sure, however NO statement has been made by RAI! If you find it, after 13 years... And for the future I suggest NO news about Italy until RAI will say a single speech about ESC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.179.18 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a policy based reason to justify removal of sourced content made from a reliable source. As I have said previously, if a reliable source issues information relevant to the article that can be verified, then it is the function of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to record such information. I really don't care if Italy haven't participated for 13 or 500 years; as long as the EBU, a reliable source, go on about, mentions of it will appear in Eurovision articles - full stop. Neither editors nor other sources (such as the RAI) have veto rights over statements of the EBU appearing. So as for the suggestion of no news about Italy unless unless RAI says so: sorry, no. For starters it is a bit of an unwise assumption that RAI are the only broadcaster that could deal with Italy's participation in Eurovision; in the past other countries have switched broadcasters such as with the Netherlands. More importantly however, the exclusion of the EBUs view of things based on personal opinion is a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy and should be dealt with as such. All significant views must be presented in the article fairly and without bias, selectively excluding statements about the EBU is intentionally or not, making the article biased, which is not acceptable. I don't see any significant difference between this and a suggestion of excluding reports from reliable sources about Kosovo (none have appeared this year but they may do in the future) because RTS says so. I will leave it for now, but unless a policy based reason for exclusion of such information is presented (note reasons along the line of X country hasn't participated for Y years or No statement from Z broadcaster are just personal opinions and not a policy based reason) then the content will be restored. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For starters it is a bit of an unwise assumption that RAI are the only broadcaster that could deal with Italy's participation in Eurovision... but if I don't mistake, only broadcasters involved with EBU can deal with ESC, right? And RAI is the only broadcaster involved with EBU, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.179.18 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes only EBU members can participate in Eurovision contests, though in theory at least, there is nothing stopping another Italian broadcaster from joining. Some countries do have more than one member as shown at European Broadcasting Union#Members. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

I have heard that Azerbaijan will choose their entry to ESC 2010 on 2 February 2010. Is that correct or not, beacause it has been removed in the semi-final table. I wonder why and I ask everyone if they have changed dates or made something else. The source for 2 February is ESCToday. I think that is a good source for ESC, but Im might wrong? /Hollac16 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ESCToday is generally considered a good source for Eurovision information. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles for lots and lots of discussion regarding this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My question is: Can I put 2 February 2010 on Azerbaijan choose song & artist or not? /Hollac16 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If it can be appropriately sourced to ESCToday, then I see no problem. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I put it back (as I did first, but it was remowed by someone here) /Hollac16 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the SEMIFINAL is on the 2 February. The final is on a yet unknown date.Redpower94 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly says "On February 2nd, the Azerbaijani semifinal for the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest will take place at the Buta Palace in Baku.The date for the national final has not been set yet. Therefore I think it's appropriate to remove the date from the table. DannyBoy20802 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then we can't have it. /Hollac16 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Albanian entry

Juliana Pasha presented the English version of her song. It's not the final version, but the new title for it is It's all about you. Reference: http://meinenews.blog.de/2010/02/03/juliana-pasha-it-s-all-about-you-exklusiv-7936933/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.100.218 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

She presented the english version, but that doesn't mean that she will sing in english in Oslo (apart of be the most likely), in my opinion we should wait for an official annoucement from the Albanian TV, and not change the song rigth now João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and argued the point here. Nathan | ^talk 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia

The official name of the Republic of Macedonia in all ESC-related topics should be FYR Macedonia and not Macedonia on its own. 79.103.148.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

By that logic, France should be the French Republic ane the UK as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc. Welshleprechaun (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Previously Macedonia was refereed to in Eurovision articles by the name it was called in the contest - F.Y.R. Macedonia. However a while ago WP:MOSMAC2 was enacted to standardise the use of the name on Wikipedia. The name F.Y.R. Macedonia may be placed in parenthesis after the first time the country is refereed to in an article, otherwise the name Macedonia should always be used. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why EBU put "FYR" in front of Macedonia during Eurovision. There are an area in Greece which is also called Macedonia, whereupon it is split on what part should be to call for Macedonia. And therefore must EBU put "FYR" in front of Macedonia. /Hollac16 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW the EBU does indeed use the nomenclature FYR Macedonia on its website. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The area in northern Greece isn't a country though so there would never be an issue relating to the Contest. The issue was that Greece doesn't think Macedonia should be able to use that name and made a stink about it. In terms of ESC, we have to take the "worldwide" approach. The country is Macedonia, all that is necessary is to say that they participate with a slightly modified name of FYR Macedonia on certain articles. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I havn't say that we should change to FYR Macedonia. I just told the history, why EBU must say FYR Macedonia instead of only Macedonia. /Hollac16 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania

according to the information found on this website http://www.escstats.com/chart10.htm Lithuania wont participate this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.65 (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The EBU seem to be confident they are with [3] and [4]. This might just be an error in one source. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The website does list Lithuania on this page. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

France's artist

ESCToday says (source [5] says that Jessy Matador will participate for France this year. While EBU haven't confirmed it yet, I wounder if we can put it on wikipedia or not. I mean, ESCToday is a reably source. But I have no idea if this message about Jessie is true. /Hollac16 (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ESCToday claims Télé Loisirs and Europe 1 as sources. Europe 1 claims an emission broadcast as a source and references Télé Loisirs but so far Télé Loisirs still says on its Internet site that it is between two candidates. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When will the song be realised? Anyone knows? /Hollac16 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Still about Italy

Ok, I give up about that phrase... But, from now on, and if you really believe that omitting that phrase is a violation of POV, in next editions I could be happier if you can found out RAI statements. ALL other broadcasters said why they don't take part to ESC, and that's not an opinion but a fact that rely on credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.165.198 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And when you say: All significant views must be presented in the article fairly and without bias, selectively excluding statements about the EBU is intentionally or not, making the article biased, which is not acceptable. ALL = not only EBU view, but also and above all RAI view, which isn't present. I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.176.194 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And if saying "No statement from Z broadcaster" is a personal opinion, also relying on reliable source should be a personal opinion. A statement drom a broadcaster involved in EBU IS A SOURCE, I suppose...

I would understand the amount of times this has been brought up if there was an entire section devoted to Italy, but currently the only Italy related material in the article is five words. The RAI view could be present if they have made a statement saying they were not going to participate this year, though I am not aware of one, and hence there is nothing new to say about them in the 2010 article. The concept that articles should be backed by reliable sources is an opinion, however it is backed by policy, which is the important thing. Some editors frequently mistake WP:NPOV for meaning that editors should moderate sources used in an article so that 50% of the article represents a viewpoint, with 50% representing another viewpoint. This is wrong. The NPOV policy requires that published reliable sources be represented fairly, so that if 80% of reliable published sources say one thing, that will get 80% of the coverage (weight) in an article. In this case if the only reliable published sources on Italy are from the EBU, then only the EBUs viewpoint will be in the article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

fairly... but representing ALL POV, not only one, I suppose. And obviously I don't pretend a 50-50 (there can be very different position about a topic...). The concept that articles should be backed by reliable sources is NOT opinion, but a fact which is very present in WP. But I'm very happy that you admit that RAI has made no statement about ESC. And however, when I make some modifies on WP, I don't do them because of personal opinion, but due to proved facts and reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.176.194 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

An opinion is defined as: A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue. The idea that Wikipedia should use reliable sources in its articles is an opinion because it is a point of view. Someone else could argue that Wikipedia shouldn't use reliable sources in its articles. Most of what is in policies and guidelines are opinions, which have been formed after lengthy debate among the community with consensus determining what opinion is present in polices and guidelines.

I have nothing to "admit" regarding RAI statements since I have never claimed they have made a statement, what I have taken issue with is attempt to introduce unnecessary rules, written or unwritten, on content in Eurovision articles. Wikipedia is not a fact book, it is an encyclopedia, and articles should contain points of view, see WP:YESPOV. The important thing is that articles should represent views fairly and not represent opinions as facts. The article currently just reports a EBU statement regarding Italy's absence, implying a desire by the EBU for Italy to return. There is no factual inaccuracy here, since it is not claiming that Italy will return. So as far as I can see, there is no problem to resolve. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: when i do something on WP, i do it WITHOUT personal opinion, but relying on facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.18.219 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no factual inaccuracy in the article content related to Italy, and more importantly it passes WP:V, so again there is no problem to solve. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I read your FAQ but i won't change my ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.21.131 (talk)

FAQ created

It has become apparent that new discussions on this talk page are frequently about the same topic that has been discussed previously and result in the same arguments being re-stated again and again. In response, to this I have created an FAQ which answers the issues that have been brought up with what I believe to be consensus and policy. Feel free to add new questions and answers, and adjust existing ones if consensus changes. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent initiative ! -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel

The Israek song's names have been published, and I think that all of them are in hebrew, can't we put the language hebrew in the Israel line? João P. M. Lima (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Liechenstein

I have no idea, but someone added Liechenstein as a confirmed participant with the artist Joanna Ryde and song "Really Small And Its Nice" (source YouTube). Is this real or fake? /Hollac16 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

100% fake, no EBU member broadcaster for a start, and the EBU have already released the 39 confirmed participants, of which the country was not listed and never was. Edit: Having watched a tiny bit of it, it really is crap :-) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I know that the article neede sources, but can't we take away the sources for the countries that have decided artist and songs. EBU have these articles on their page, so all info are true. /Hollac16 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

France not sure about artist

This source [6] says that France haven't chose their entry for the ESC 2010. Is this true or false info? /Hollac16 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I said above that the sources did not seem reliable. Checking the article, even the EBU reference on the article page says "might". -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian entry to be sung in English

Vukašin Brajić has announced on his official Facebook fan page that his entry in ESC 2010 is going to be sung in English. I am not sure whether this is classified as a valid source, so I have not edited the article itself.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Returning artists

Shouldn't Sopho be in here? She represented Georgia in 2007 with Visionary Dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpokane (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ,

No, in 2007 Georgia was represented by Sopho Khalvashi. This year Georgia is represented by Sopho Nizharadze.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian entry

There are claims on ESCKaz that the Ukrainian entry has been disqualified. The way this news was written makes it seem that this is original reporting by ESCKaz, and rather speculative. ESCToday and the EBU seem confident that that entry is going to Oslo. Per previous consensus ESCKaz is only considered semi-reliable, and further higher quality sources will be needed before a claim of disqualification can be treated as credible by Wikipedia. In particular an actual confirmation from the EBU that the song is disqualified would be good. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

ESCToday have published an article refering to an official statement by NTU. According to NTU, "To Be Free" has been accused of plagiarising the song "Knock Me Out" by Linda Perry and Grace Slick. If the song is found not to comply with the EBU rules, Alyosha will be allowed to submit a different song. The press release states that an official decision will be made on 22nd March. However, "To Be Free" has been available on Amazon.de since April 2008 and on Alyosha's MySpace page since the summer of 2009, which obviously doesn't comply with the 1st October rule. The song by Masha Sobko that tied for 1st place with "To Be Free" in the new Ukrainian final also breaks the 1st October rule.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would leave Alyosha as the entry until an annoouncement is made tomorrow (22 March 2010) MSalmon (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

eurovision.tv: have published this: "A 23-year-old singer, Alyosha, won the Ukrainian national final yesterday. She performed the song To Be Free. But after the show, it has been found out that Alyosha's entry broke the Eurovision rules. To Be Free has been revealed in 2008. It is also suspected to be a plagiarism of Knock Me Out performed by Linda Perry and Grace Slick. So it is still not confirmed which entry will be sent to the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest from Ukraine. More information will follow soon!"--130.226.70.114 (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The EBU article would be enough to justify removing the song as confirmed for Ukraine for the time being. However, given that a decision is due out to tomorrow I am also happy waiting till then. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this article published on the website of NTU, the EBU have given them time until 26 March to find a new song for Alyosha.--130.226.70.114 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources of the artists & the songs are no longer necessary

I think it is no longer necessary with the sources of the artists, lanugage & songs for the contestants. Firstly, EBU have approved all the songs and artists (except for Ukraine). Secondly, both ESCToday, ESCNation, Eurovision.tv and others have written about the artists there are and their associated draw number. I voe for remove sources with the ARTISTS and SONGS, and for what language they sing in. Its not necessary anymore. /Hollac16 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the amount of sources used can be scaled down, then I will support such a cut down. However this article should still be able to pass WP:V independently. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Various issues

I have come across a few issues in the article that should probably be addressed. As mentioned above, and as in previous years, now that all the songs have been picked and the EBU has released the contestant list, the sources can be cut down to a single source. There is no real reason to have every piece of information in the table individually sourced when they can all be covered under a few main sources at the top of the table. (Except for controversial issues that need their own sources, such as language controversy) Also I am not sure about the inclusion of the original language song titles in the table. (Example "Angel si ti" (Ангел си ти) or OPA"(ΟΠΑ)) Another issue I see right now is the inclusion of the "Returning artists" section, which I have also seen added in past edition pages. What is the exact importance of it to this specific article? That is what linking is for. You can click on the artist and be directed to their page which include information on past participation. Personally, I don't think this section should be included. But since it has been added in past edition articles, maybe this specific issue should be brought up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision instead? Greekboy (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Language links replaced

Hello. I hope I didn't break any rule but I removed the languages links and replaced by one single link that can be found here as they show the exact name of the entries, its language and even its transliteration. 200.109.74.39 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your aim to simplify things, I'm afraid I've undone what you did. Wikipedia functions by using multiple reliable sources for its articles and this is one of its strengths. We spent a lot of time deciding what or what not constitutes a reliable source for the Eurovision Song Contest articles over at the Eurovision WikiProject. The one area we decided one single reference for this year's entries would suffice was an official list from the EBU itself. If you have any questions, just ask. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We have never used links for the languages and I think it is really stupid to put those multiple links just for the languages plus you just said that one single reference would be an official list from the EBU. Well you have it here and here. Is it really necessary to put a link for the language the song will be performed??. I think you should ask the people what they want a lot of people have been saying they don't want the links for the languages. I think it is very unnecessary. 200.109.74.39 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A reference is needed whenever something is "controversial". For some languages, mostly of the former Yugoslav area, it is not always clear which language it is sung in, so a reliable source is the only way to distinguish. For others like English and Greek it is obvious. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia was dissolved in 1991, not yesterday, and all the former Yugoslav countries have clearly stated their official languages in their constitutions and international organizations. Slovene is an official language of the European Union, for instance. I don't see why there should be a confusion between the Slovene or Serbian language. I'm asking people to vote on whether they want the languages sources or not. Tony0106 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

mini stage

according to my sources the stage will only be a few meters in length.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk)

The stage could be anything, and have come in many different sizes. Think its best to wait for an official press release, until then I'm keeping my eyes on this. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the article where I first read it, but the circular main performance area is 12 metres wide, meaning that the main performance area covers an area of approx. 115 square metres. Doesn't sound too small to me.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

no led?

based on what i have read there wont be any led screens on the stage. meaning that the stage will be primitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia

EBU uses the term FYROM and not Macedonia.Macedonia is a greek area and not a country. koulidou —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) for the consensus on use of the term Macedonia in Eurovision articles. It established that Macedonia would be the term to refer to the country, and that no "special rules" will be put in place for contests which use the term F.Y.R. Macedonia, with the exception that F.Y.R. Macedonia can be used once in some Eurovision articles to help explain the situation to readers. I am adding this to the FAQ as it seems to be a frequent topic of Eurovision talk pages. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What a Greek person would say?Bringing Greek refugees from Pontus,and populating them to Aegean Macedonia was idea,and therefore you want to absorb that it is Greek...Macedonia is Macedonia,not Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It had never occurred to me that Wikipedia articles would be so blatantly politically incorrect. The above comments show at least, disrespect to international law and decisions of the United Nations Organization and of its committees. Consensus and "special rules" do not have any relation with truth of information and accuracy when writing historical articles even for issues of artistic caliber, such as the Eurovision song contest. The way the above mentioned consensus was reached shows lack of academic knowledge and responsibility, virtues which in my opinion are fundamental when editing in an encyclopedia of this statute and fame, while subsequently raise questions over the intentions of certain users who promote a hostile and biased environment with their "political" views in articles which on the contrary should promote, among other things, the freedom of speech and clarity of historical knowledge. The above encyclopedic misinformation can be easily verified by external sources simply by visiting the United Nations webpage. Dimitrios Tsioulis. username: alssest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssest (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) is a binding guideline, which will continue to apply no matter how many objections are made on this talk page. Proposals to change the guideline can be made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), though it is unlikely any amendments will be made, and there is no chance of proposals being listened to if they are full of accusations. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible return of the orchestra section

With the competition on the doorstep, there must a conclusion made on the topic. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not found anything new on this topic, so it appears that nothing came out of calls to bring back the orchestra in the end. I have re-worded the section to make it less open ended on if the orchestra will return. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be removed. There are Facebook groups for everything, and I don't see what makes this one so significant that makes it worth mentioning in the article. TrondM (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not mentioned because there are Facebook groups, it is mentioned because it is a proposal that received coverage from multiple reliable sources. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A proposal from who? Does any of the sources suggest the EBU actually considered it? If it's just a bunch of outsiders that wants the orchestra back, then it's completely irrelevant. As far as I can see, both sources refer to the facebook group, which is worthless, and none of them mention any sort of reaction from EBU. TrondM (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the contest, the proposal to bring the orchestra was about the contest, so it is relevant. The main test for inclusion is verifiability, not editor's opinions on its worthiness, or whether the EBU were involved or not. While EBU consideration is not specifically mentioned in the sources, interest was received from the Norwegian Radio Orchestra, so this was not just a proposed change like any other from fans. I will accept a cut down on this section on grounds that it was not in the end of great long-interest, but I have yet to hear a policy based reason justifying total removal. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that anyone can propose anything about anything. Just because it's possible to verify that someone made a proposal, doesn't make the proposal worth mentioning. I could create a facebook group proposing that olympic athletes should compete in the nude, like they did in ancient times. I'm sure I could get more than 5000 members too. Would that be worth mentioning on the London 2012 Olympics page? No, of course not. If the London Olympic Committee actually considers it, then it would be worth mentioning. Otherwise, it's just "some random guy on the internet"'s opinion on the competition. Now, if this section is to stay, I would at the very least change the heading. There's no indication that there ever was a possibility for the orchestra to return, so I'd change the heading to "Fan campaign to bring back the orchestra", or something similar. I'd also move it out of the format section, since it's basically trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrondM (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you started a Facebook campaign and it got no other coverage, no matter how many members were gained, it would not be given a mention as Facebook is not a reliable source so does not pass the verifiability test. However, if your Facebook campaign received coverage from a reliable source then it could be mentioned, even more so if it attracted interest from a notable organisation. That is the reason, as backed by policy, that one scenario would get a mention and one wouldn't. I would agree with a change to the title, though most of the article will be re-formatted after the contest anyway. I don't see any reason to move it out of the format section. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures available

Aktiv I Oslo.no from Flickr has agree to make 136 of his pictures available, which could be used here or in related articles (all licensed cc-by-sa). Specifically these (Big 5 rehearsals) and these (yesterday's welcoming ball). The sets include pictures of all artists except Macedonia. I'm not sure what would be the easiest way to transfer the images to Commons. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are now available here:

Commons:Category:Eurovision 2010 rehearsals

Commons:Category:Eurovision 2010 Welcoming Reception

EnemyOfTheState_|talk 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasting problems in semi 1

Hi. should we mention the quite huge broadcasting problems during semifinal 1. Like the fact that the sound and broadcast didnt sync during the performances. so it looked like someone had been doing some dubbing. or the fact that the broadcast just frozed and sometime just disappeared for a few seconds.It was many big issues.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Atleast SVT (sweden) had major problems with the above mentioned matters.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this problem posted on a forum. Broadcasting problems can affect the outcome of the voting, so yes probably, also whether this was just SVT1 or SVT HD or other European broadcasts, since the coverage on BBC Three was fine. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was the overall broadcast because we have two different boxes both from satellite and ground in my home and on both the broadcasts wasnt in sync at all. and the newspapers in sweden reported that all broadcasts from svt 1 was in the same way all over sweden. so for example belgiums entry looked like Tom Dice was dubbed or something.loosing some feeling perhaps resulting in low points from sweden.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I switched between Norwegian, Swedish and Danish television during semi1, and the Swedish broadcast was the only one out of sync. As far as I know, no other countries has complained about sync problems either. TrondM (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing something. Sweden didn't vote in the first semi-final. -- Andreyyshore (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In Portugal RTP doesn't had problems. Only the phone numbers didn't apper in the HD channel and in the main channel only in the end of the Moldova presentation the first number appered. But this is problem from RTP. After the only things that we saw here were the mistake of someone in the arena that put the video delayed, and there were only two images from two cameras that had a little black square in the midlle, but it was just for 1 or 2 seconds, so, in Portugal there weren't any problem in the broadcasting João P. M. Lima (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I hve been in contact with SVT and they confirmed the problems but also confirmed that there will be no further problems in semi 2 or the ffinal with the delays.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Postcard of Serbia

Should we mention that half the map of Serbia on the postcard seemed to be cut off the screen where Kosovo is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.220.214 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

perhaps.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew they screwed up on the map, but didn't think about the Kosovo situation, but after watching again it does seem that the map does include Kosovo, but can't really tell. It's probably best to wait for the final and see then. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the clip again. And i personally think it looks like Kosovo has been cut out.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Kosovo is included but a few of the bubbles fly away before the rest of Serbia which I think were Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.220.214 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) kosovo isnt a part of serbia anymore.

Kosovo is on the map. Look again, Kosovo is in Serbia's south. They actually cut part of Western Serbia for an unknown reason.

Unless this becomes one of the BBC's top stories, this is not really notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Welshleprechaun 08:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also possible, they used an old map of Serbia and Montenegro (2003-06)? That may be a reason why they don't show the western instead of the southern part of the map...--Stefan040780 (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because in reality Kosovo shouldnt be part of the Serbian map as it is independent as of 2008 and is its own country.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again: Do we really need the links for the languages?

I don't know. I found it a bit messy to have all those links next to every language. Is this really important? Can't we have one single link? We have never used it on any ESC page before and I can't find a problem with that. So I will like to open the debate on whether or not we should keep the languages' links. Please. Tony0106 (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by the language links? If you mean the links to the language articles e.g. [[English language|English]], then WP:LINK applies here. While normally repeatedly linking the same article is discouraged, an exception is made for sortable tables "in which each row should be able to stand on its own." If you mean the references, then yes one reference could be used if a reliable source can be found listing all the languages for this year. In any case WP:V applies here, and everything should be referenced if "challenged or likely to be challenged". Given that the languages have been a source of dispute this year and in the past, I would say that languages should be referenced. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi. I took pictures of all the artists today, and I hve now uploaded more than half of them to Commons Category "Eurovision 2010 rehearsals". I'll be back later this evening to upload the rest. Some of them are real fine, some are just mediocre. Bjoertvedt (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland Language

Iceland's song includes a phrase in french. Should the language be English (with french)? Or do we count it as English as it is a phrase used by English speaking people? Thetictocmonkey 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The primary language is English, but the title is French, so the language must be kept at English. J4lambert (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Postcard from Israel

Should we mention that the map of Israel on the postcard seemed to overlook most, if not all, of the Occupied Territories disputed settlements?! This is nothing short of an international outrage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.57.136 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean it was pro-israel or anti-israel? --194.219.142.101 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary to be documented on Wikipedia. I can't see the media making a fuss about it. Do you have the image as a proof? KamalSagraha (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel was intentionally made blurry because of the geopolitical situation there. NRK did not want to get involved either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.0.180.63 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Points

And the results:

• Germany 246
• Turkey 170
• Romania 162
• Denmark 149
• Azerbaijan 145
• Belgium 143
• Armenia 141
• Greece 140
• Georgia 136
• Ukraine 108
• Russia 90
• France 82
• Serbia 72
• Israel 71
• Spain 68
• Albania 62
• Bosnia&Herzegovina 51
• Portugal 43
• Iceland 41
• Norway 35
• Moldova 27
• Cyprus 27
• Ireland 25
• Belarus 18
• United Kingdom 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.130.28 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for semi-final results?

I see that the points from the first semi-final have been added, and points from the second are being added as we speak. But where is the source? I certainly cannot find it at eurovision.tv. Nevermind. I found it...

Jetro (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph

Obviously it's going to chance in the next days but the way it is now...I mean, name of winner and winning song are missing, but you have those of last year's show??? Dollvalley (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Best Euro-kitsch-ion song was Denmark

I wonder if there are sources supporting that is the most 'Eurovision Classic' of them all. For inclusion in article. --194.219.142.101 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Spokeperson from Poland

That was Aleksandra Rosiak, not Radek Brzózka. Please change this false information. 87.205.46.36 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.107.129.118, 30 May 2010

In the table Belgium is listed as have finished in 16th place instead of 6th place 122.107.129.118 (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Has been solved in the meantime. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Classification label

there is a Classification label in the Final section for best three countries on the contest. but countries {1)Germany 2)Turkey 3)Romania} link us women's national handball team. Is there any spesific reason for that? ıt should be eaither country itself or country in Eurovision song contest 2010, i think--96.42.237.249 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Je Ne Sais Quoi translation

The english translation for "Je Ne Sais Quoi" is not really sufficient. While it is an accurate word-by-word translation, it doesn't really capture the original French meaning of the phrase. (See a discussion here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=465254).

I would propose "A Special Something" as this more closely matches the phrase's meaning, and echoes the song's lyrics nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayveday (talk • contribs) 05:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alssest, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the name of the country Macedonia, which participated in the Eurovision song contest, to the country's provisional name of Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia (FYR Macedonia), because it violates principles, rules and practices of international law as defined by the Charter United Nations Organization. It must also be noted that the EBU has recognized the above mentioned country with the its provisional name as derived from the United Nations Security Council Resolutions No. 817, No. 847 and from the Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia respectively. The above can be confirmed by the UN's website (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1993/scres93.htm and untreaty.un.org/unts/120001_144071/6/3/00004456.pdf) With respect, Dimitrios Tsioulis username: alssest Alssest (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Scoreboard tables

Concerning this edit. I notice from virtually all ESC articles that filling the nul-votes with zeros is apparently (and to my surprise) widely accepted standard practice for the scoreboards; so I'm posting here asking for your opinions on this.

My own take is that the tables provide far better overview when the nul-vote fields remain empty. Conversely, filling the fields with zeros adds no useful information as far as I can see.

At the official Eurovision website the scoreboards also present only the positive, point-reward values. See e.g. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/oslo2010/the-participants/final (click the "open the score board" button)

Also, keeping the zeros only because "they are in all the other tables in all other articles (and it would take a long time to change them all)" is a very weak argument if only for the fact that with the help of any advanced text editor, reformatting a table is a matter of seconds. --78.34.238.130 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The zeros should be removed. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no overall preference to either method, and would accept any decision that has overall consensus. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the collapsed box below is what the scoreboard tables should look like imho. I've retained part of Michael's edit to the Final scoreboard concerning the bottom line of the table. Otherwise, the tables are identical to the ones in the article right now. --87.79.170.110 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the nice tables you propose. Just one small thing: The first cell (i.e., A1 in Excel lingo) is sometimes colored violet and sometimes blank. I think you should use a consistent formatting for all three tables.

It appears that nobody disagrees with dropping the zeros. I will remove them tomorrow, if this is still consensus (i.e., not contested). Tomeasy _{T C} 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The colors in the top row are due to namespace sensitivity, nothing in the code. --87.79.58.205 (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you understood what I mean. Can you fix it or not? Tomeasy _{T C} 06:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done "fixed". It won't make a difference though because in mainspace, the tables will look exactly like the ones currently in the article (no blue boxes whatsoever, that's just how the wikitable class looks on talk pages, not in mainspace). --87.79.50.188 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I pasted the tables into the article. Indeed, the purple color does not show up at all. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

proposed formatting

Semi-final 1 Voting Results Moldova 52 5 1 2 7 4 8 7 10 3 5 Russia 74 12 12 3 10 4 2 8 5 3 1 12 1 Estonia 39 12 12 1 5 1 1 4 1 2 Slovakia 24 2 6 5 1 1 5 5 Finland 49 3 10 2 6 1 7 2 7 6 3 2 Latvia 11 6 5 Serbia 79 3 4 1 6 3 12 3 3 7 2 10 3 12 4 6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 59 1 2 5 12 6 3 7 5 8 4 6 Poland 44 2 6 4 6 6 3 7 7 3 Belgium 167 6 10 8 10 10 8 7 4 12 12 4 10 12 4 8 12 10 12 8 Malta 45 3 12 1 1 6 2 2 3 6 2 4 2 1 Albania 76 4 2 7 4 8 6 12 12 10 2 5 4 Greece 133 7 7 2 8 8 10 8 7 10 8 10 10 3 5 8 4 8 10 Portugal 89 5 5 4 6 7 5 3 2 4 4 5 2 7 8 10 12 Macedonia 37 4 1 1 8 10 12 1 Belarus 59 8 12 4 3 5 3 5 6 7 5 1 Iceland 123 10 8 7 7 7 2 3 10 12 10 8 8 6 1 6 5 6 7 Semi-final 2 Televoting Results Lithuania 44 2 1 4 2 12 2 1 8 5 7 Armenia 83 1 12 3 5 6 8 10 10 8 12 10 4 Israel 71 8 8 7 6 12 3 5 1 4 5 7 5 Denmark 101 5 5 7 5 12 6 5 4 12 10 4 2 3 4 3 6 8 Switzerland 2 2 Sweden 62 3 3 12 10 2 6 1 5 1 2 2 12 3 Azerbaijan 113 2 5 5 6 3 12 1 8 8 10 7 10 10 12 12 2 Ukraine 77 10 10 2 3 8 2 5 1 2 6 6 6 7 3 4 2 Netherlands 29 4 4 2 1 6 3 1 5 3 Romania 104 6 4 8 8 4 7 5 3 3 4 6 4 8 4 8 10 12 Slovenia 6 1 5 Ireland 67 7 1 3 6 12 4 8 4 2 3 1 6 10 Bulgaria 19 1 5 7 6 Cyprus 67 4 6 10 7 6 3 4 6 5 12 4 Croatia 33 7 2 7 1 12 1 3 Georgia 106 12 12 6 1 2 10 7 5 2 7 7 10 7 7 10 1 Turkey 118 8 10 8 10 12 10 7 7 3 8 12 8 6 1 8 Final Voting Results Azerbaijan 145 7 7 7 10 7 5 6 3 1 8 12 4 12 8 7 2 2 8 12 3 2 12 Spain 68 4 1 2 7 4 2 4 7 12 1 4 5 8 5 2 Norway 35 2 6 2 3 5 7 3 3 4 Moldova 27 6 4 1 10 6 Cyprus 27 12 1 2 1 3 4 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina 51 12 8 6 5 6 4 10 Belgium 143 3 5 10 6 10 1 7 4 5 12 5 10 3 10 6 4 10 10 7 7 2 6 Serbia 72 1 12 3 10 5 7 10 7 1 8 8 Belarus 18 3 12 2 1 Ireland 25 7 2 6 2 1 6 1 Greece 140 5 2 12 6 12 10 12 3 12 8 4 7 3 8 8 5 7 1 7 3 5 United Kingdom 10 2 4 3 1 Georgia 136 8 1 1 5 5 4 4 7 5 5 5 2 7 10 12 5 8 4 5 12 1 6 1 6 7 Turkey 170 12 3 2 10 6 3 3 1 10 5 8 8 12 8 10 6 6 3 10 4 3 5 8 2 10 12 Albania 62 5 3 10 1 7 7 1 1 2 12 8 5 Iceland 41 6 8 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 Ukraine 108 10 8 6 7 10 5 7 1 2 5 7 8 2 7 3 6 7 7 France 82 2 4 3 3 4 6 8 2 6 6 3 7 3 7 1 8 2 1 3 3 Romania 162 7 10 10 12 8 2 6 1 7 4 8 2 5 5 2 3 1 10 8 8 1 3 6 5 2 4 10 5 7 Russia 90 3 10 12 4 10 10 2 10 10 6 8 5 Armenia 141 8 6 7 7 1 5 7 10 6 6 6 6 12 7 12 4 1 5 4 1 12 8 Germany 246 1 12 12 4 8 10 8 8 2 4 10 10 3 5 3 3 6 1 12 12 12 12 12 7 4 8 10 12 12 4 10 3 6 Portugal 43 6 2 1 8 4 6 4 6 1 5 Israel 71 5 5 1 2 1 8 3 4 4 3 1 8 10 10 6 Denmark 149 4 4 8 2 12 6 2 12 12 1 5 4 4 5 7 2 10 12 8 2 3 8 2 12 2 The table is horizontally and vertically ordered by appearance in the final, then horizontally by appearance in the semi-finals.