Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:33, 24 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eurovision Song Contest 2009. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eurovision Song Contest 2009 at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Eurovision

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Armenia artist selection

As far as I can see the Azeria Press Agency is a reliable source and the claims it makes are worth noting; in particular I doubt it would make hoax claims of happenings in the Turkish Parliament, which are quite significant. I am moving details of this to the entry article, but I will accept leaving the table here as saying TBD as the broadcaster does not appear to have confirmed the claimed selection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the reason I removed System of a Down from the article; because the broadcaster hadn't announced that they were sending System of a Down. I suggest we make a 'rule' and stick to it that in an event of an internal selection (which is going to be the case for eight countries this year) only add their participants into the article if that certain singer/act has been announced to represent that country in 2009. - Diggiloo (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well most sourcing in articles should rely on secondary sources (i.e. ESCToday, Oikotimes), rather than primary sources (i.e. the broadcasters) per WP:V#Reliable sources, though both can be used. I am happy to be on the safe side and leave it as TBD at present as no other reliable source (that I know of) has said System of the Down is going to Moscow, and none have said the broadcaster has confirmed it. However, if multiple numbers of reliable secondary sources say xyz is confirmed then that is enough to add it, a direct announcement from the broadcaster is helpful but it is not strictly necessary per WP:V. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish song title

What should we label the Turkish song title as? I've put it as 'Düm Tek Tek', 'Crazy for You' and some other names. In the song presentation the song title wasn't announced, for some reason. I've labeled it as 'Düm Tek Tek' as we've got more sources at the moment that say it's 'Düm Tek Tek' than other names. -Diggiloo (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song article seems to explain that the title is onomatapoeic, like we need any more of that in Eurovision :) doktorb _words^deeds 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to get rid of the "Hadise song" disambiguation because we don't need it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your opinions at the talk page of the song for moving it to an appropriate title. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently says in hidden comments: "Crazy for You is NOT the English translation of the song", yet at Düm Tek Tek it says at the intro of the article "also known by its English name "Crazy for You"". Which is correct? Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the culprit for both :O "Crazy for You" seems to be an alternate name for the song, but not the official, hence "also known by". There is a difference between English title and translation that seems to be the problem. Since "Dum Tek Tek" seems to be a sound, it cannot be translated into another language (read the article) and therefore has no "translation" while it does have an "english title". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that now makes sense to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TRT say the song's name is 'Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for you..' in one of their articles, which I showed to Grk1011/Stephen the other day, but i've since lost the link. Being so we should (really) go by what the broadcaster calls the song, once I find the article we should call the song Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for you..? -Diggiloo (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After all this, I would prefer at least two sources for the name, preferably both by TRT on diff days and such. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Diggiloo's comment, I have also lost the link, I definitely saw it being titles "Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for You". ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link for a news story about the song. This article from TRT seems to support only "Düm Tek Tek". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kaas?

It could be very good if she will represent France in the ESC, but there are only rumors and no confirmed sources...--87.6.176.27 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess its confirmed now... Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source given says she is only in negotiations, no final decision has been made. A think we should wait a few days until a press release with a final decision (as claimed in the source) comes out. Hence, I have removed her as confirmed for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a little confusing the way the articles are worded. The one on ESCToday was titled something like she might, but then the body is worded like she is going to. I say we wait until the broadcaster confirms. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Song Translation

I have listed the turkish song translation as 'Boom Bang Bang'. Even though this isn't a translation but an equivalent, it's the nearest we'll get to a translation. It has been removed a number of times by a certain user and I think there should be a consensus on it being mentioned in the article. -Diggiloo (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name of the song is a sound rather than a word or sentence, etc, there is no "translation". However, there would be an "equivalent" as the source provides us. Boom Bang Bang seems like a good fit and I think it doesn't hurt to have it. When you think about it, a translation is basically an equivalent. It says the same thing in a way greater understood; I feel that Boom Bang Bang does this for Dum Tek Tek. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it not to have a translation personally as it is a drum beat, as stated in the actual article here. I agree with the statement that a translation is an "equivalent" in English, but I don't agree with translating the Turkish drum beat names into English, it just seems stupid in my opinion. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could use a note that will say its an equivalent. It would be a little stupid if it linked to a page that said it had no translation lol. But I think its inclusion will help the reader realize that it isn't just a foreign name; they will be able to identify it as a sound. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I just said on MSN. You can't really translate the sound a Turkish drum makes - I would agree to writing something that means people can identify the words "Düm Tek Tek" as a drum beat however. I've bolded Stephen's statement there about identifying it as a sound as it is the best option for all parties involved. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is to list it as "Boom Bang Bang" with a note next to it stating that there is no direct translation to it, as it is a sound a Turkish drum makes. I was bold and added it with a note. If anyone has any objections, please feel free to take it out. Greekboy (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object. If the sound is onomatopoeic then it cannot be translated! The sound of this drum, in Turkish, from where the song is from, is Dum Tek Tek. That is its sound. There can be no translation, only "equivilance", which is what the source says (and that is NOT an official translation site, for one). doktorb _words^deeds 19:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it will be a note that its not a translation, only an equivalent. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why there is a note next to "Boom Bang Bang". If you click on it, it says that "Düm Tek Tek" is the sound that a drum makes, thus there is no direct or official translation for it. "Boom Bang Bang" is simply the English equivalent.". Greekboy (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theme

I see the new theme has been reveled, but yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I would add it myself, but I do not know much about it. I will try to search for information. Greekboy (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a visual design section, with some information I found, but it needs to be expanded. Who ever has more information, please add. Greekboy (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of semi finals

The map that someone created showing the countries participating and voting in each semi final is wrong as UK, Spain and Germany are suppose to vote in Semi Finl 1. but it says otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.81.184 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The captions are correct, but have been mixed up. Red = SF1, Blue - SF2, however this is reversed for the voters and really should be changed. Also the map is slapped in the participating countries section, but focuses more on the Semi-finals. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Blue should not generally be used to color in countries on the map, as blue is generally used to represent bodies of water. :p Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece and Cyprus in the same semi final? We sure? doktorb _words^deeds 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1857 -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there goes the "want to split up neighbours who want to vote for each other" plan then, eh? doktorb _words^deeds 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised as well, but good for Greece and Cyprus! :p Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There were still countries from the same pot together last year too. Greekboy (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

This page needs to be semi-protected to prevent random people from altering information to their liking. This always happens during the national final season. Evilperson 20 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree because of people like us wooohooooo wooot wooot lolk rofl XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.15.155 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is too bad yet, and some IPs make some constructive edits to the page. Close to the final and just after semi-protection might be necessary but we are still some months away from that yet. In any case, per WP:SEMI pages should not be protected for vandalism which has not yet occurred. There have certainly been a few cases of vandalism on this page, but I don't think it is out of control enough yet to justify semi-protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song selection dates

Ok, I don't want to be a complete hypocrite, but I was thinking maybe we can include the selection dates for each entry. I still don't support the new column, but say for Greece, since the only thing left is the song to pick, we put in the song column (18 February 2009) to denote that it will be chosen on that date. Any thoughts? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't mind it, as long as it is sourced I'm sure it will be fine, just clicking on the less than 43 participating countries can take a lot of time. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selection season is almost over. I'm not sure it is worth it to get into this with even more sourcing. I don't know though. Greekboy (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in bothering now as songs have been chosen already and such.. -Diggiloo (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Table

I know I have asked this before, but do we honestly need so many sources in the table for everything? This is an overview page, I don't think the song, singer, or language needs to be sourced (after it is chosen) unless it is disputed. (like the language for example) Greekboy (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's only an overview table and the sources can be found on the pages of each country. There are way too much sources in this article. Is it really necessary to have 3 sources for every country (1 of Estoday, 1 of Oikotimes and 1 of Eurovision.tv) when the news of the 3 sources are the same? Danoples (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say remove every source except Eurovision.tv. Mike H. Fierce! 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, assuming there is a eurovision.tv source for each. I feel that its better to have one to back yourself up than none at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be able to stand on its own in meeting WP:V, but it can do this with much less sources than it has now. Only disputable information actually needs to be sourced, this does not apply to a lot of the song languages. Citing more than once for one piece of info is not particularly necessary either (unless something is particularly controversial), though there is no rule I know against it, it just takes up space. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a firm outcome to this, but I was bold and took out the sources for the languages at least. I left some of the controversial, or potentially controversial ones in, including ones for songs that have not yet been chosen. I think the next step is to take out the artist and song sources unless controversial. Any further input would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that no sourcing is needed as a table acts an overview, unless an item is controversial of course. Also there is no need for double sourcing, with the exception of disputed/controversial entries. Imperatore (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the double sources a few days ago and left the eurovision.tv refs, I guess we can give this reduced source thing a chance. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading these comments, I was bold and took out the non-controversial sources. Sorry for hitting minor edit by accident. :p Greekboy (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from georgian song-"we don't wanna put in"

When this song won the eurovision 2009 in georgia, many people told that georgia will be discvalip. pls tell me if is it tru? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.169.129 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 may answer your question - it looks like last year's conflict in South Ossetia led to Georgia pulling out from the contents, then re-entering after Russia game top marks to Georgia in a different content. There are, apparently, calls for Georgia to boycott (that is, to pull out of the contest again) the contest, but whether this will happen is not yet clear. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes but this song isn't about Putin, this is only simple song and nothing is thre aboute the georgien-russien conflict.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.169.129 (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article I referenced above doesn't say anything about the song being political - it simply says that political tensions between Georgia and Russia led to Georgia withdrawing from the contest. If the article doesn't answer your question I don't know what to suggest - Wikipedia:Reference desk maybe? (Incidentally, that is probably a better venue anyway - talk pages like this are really for discussing how to improve their associated articles). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are those broadcasters?

Under "Voting", it says "In response to some broadcasters' continued complaints about politically charged, neighbourly and diaspora voting" - who are those broadcasters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjessen (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli song title

I'm sure we all have our own opinions on how the Israeli song title should be written, but I can we agree on one title for the song, instead of, like, four different ones. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Song Translation

Who has qualified the Turkish song translation to be Boom Bang Bang? I have not seen this anywhere and the source provided is unreliable. As far as I'm concerned there is no translation to the title. The reasoning provided to support "Boom Bang Bang" could support a number of English variants. This should be removed and left with no translation. Evilperson 20 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before and I suggest you take a look a few sections up. The source is the where the translation came from and I have problems with the sites reliability, though it's not the best. Without a translation, we are showing that somehow Dum Tek Tek is an English phrase or saying, which it most definitely is not. I am going to reinstate Boom bang bang for now. The chain of events goes discussion, then action. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the note that is written and referred to beside the current translation is enough of an explanation. There is no need to find equivalent terms especially when they have not been provided with an official source. There is simply no translation and therefore there should be a hyphen as in other counties with the note beside it that explains the situation. Evilperson 20 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language issues

This article is being effected like last years with disputes over languages. The Bosnia and Herzegovina entry is currently marked as in Serbian and is sourced as it is controversial per WP:V. I have removed the following note which was inserted when changing the song language back to Bosnian, although the source saying otherwise was left??:

There are several problems with this:

Determining disputed article content by personal views made from listening to a song without sources is a type of original research.
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. Hence content in articles should reflect what sources actually say.
WP:BURDEN makes clear that those adding content are obliged to find sources which back up their views, one source has been provided for Serbian, I have seen none for Bosnia and Herzegovina which show this source given was a mistake.

Hence, I have gone along with the existing source for now, though I overall don't really mind which one is used, as long as it used appropriately within policy. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As both languages (Serbian and Bosnian) are very alike, I'd put the language as Bosnian as the band is from Bosnia & Herzegovina. I will ask around though to see if it's Bosnian or Serbian though :) -Diggiloo (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the language articles the languages appear to be mostly, perhaps almost entirely, the same, this appears to be dominantly a political issue. I am sympathetic to the idea of just having all the languages to local dialect e.g. Bosnia to Bosnian, Croatia to Croatian, if it resolves the issue as it is logical, as in the wider context it is clear sources disagree on this issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the language as Bosnian as the band is from Bosnia & Herzegovina - That doesn't make sense, Bosnian is the language of the Bosniaks, not the language of Bosnia and Hercegovina. BiH has three official languages. --androl (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source currently used does not make sense. It makes a comparison between Serbian and Bosnian, and comes to the correct conclusion that the language in the song is not Serbian, but then jumps to the conclusion that the song actually is in a third language, Croatian. Without any better sources there is no reason to dispute that the song is in the local dialect for Sarajevo, Bosnian. 83.227.38.65 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two different sources so far, and numerous IPs have cheerfully ignored both and changed the text to whatever their personal version of the truth is. The current reference is an attempt to address the issues that various IP editors apparently had with the esctoday reference. I suspect that the best solution may simply be to semi-protect the page in order to force discussion here? Frankly I don't care what the article says, just so long as the text matches the reference. Alternatively I could just decide that the song is actually sung in Te Reo Māori...! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two sources supporting that the song is in Bosnian (though the differences are minimal), a newspaper ^[1] and the homepage of a web-radio station ^[2]. Neither one is in English. The newspapers short statement translated into English says "The group from Sarajevo, "Regina", performed "Bistra Voda" in the Bosnian language...". 83.227.38.76 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.dnevniavaz.ba/multimedija/foto-galerije/grupa-regina-premijerno-izvela-pjesmu-bistra-voda

[2] ttp://www.fbradio.eu/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1430

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 13:43, 24 March 2009 edit TFOWR (talk \| contribs) 27,123 edits →Language issues: Explanation for the current reference ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:33, 24 March 2009 edit undo 83.227.38.76 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 137:		Line 137:

	::::: There have been two different sources so far, and numerous IPs have cheerfully ignored both and changed the text to whatever their personal version of the [[WP:TRUTH\|truth]] is. The current reference is an attempt to address the issues that various IP editors apparently had with the esctoday reference. I suspect that the best solution may simply be to semi-protect the page in order to force discussion here? Frankly I don't care what the article says, just so long as the text matches the reference. Alternatively I could just decide that the song is ''actually'' sung in [[Te Reo Māori]]...! Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red\|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red\|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red\|deeds]]</sub> 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)		::::: There have been two different sources so far, and numerous IPs have cheerfully ignored both and changed the text to whatever their personal version of the [[WP:TRUTH\|truth]] is. The current reference is an attempt to address the issues that various IP editors apparently had with the esctoday reference. I suspect that the best solution may simply be to semi-protect the page in order to force discussion here? Frankly I don't care what the article says, just so long as the text matches the reference. Alternatively I could just decide that the song is ''actually'' sung in [[Te Reo Māori]]...! Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red\|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red\|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red\|deeds]]</sub> 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

			:::::: Here are two sources supporting that the song is in Bosnian (though the differences are minimal), a newspaper <ref>http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/multimedija/foto-galerije/grupa-regina-premijerno-izvela-pjesmu-bistra-voda</ref> and the homepage of a web-radio station <ref>http://www.fbradio.eu/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1430</ref>. Neither one is in English. The newspapers short statement translated into English says "The group from Sarajevo, "Regina", performed "Bistra Voda" in the Bosnian language...". [[Special:Contributions/83.227.38.76\|83.227.38.76]] ([[User talk:83.227.38.76\|talk]]) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)