Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.141.240.227 (talk) at 03:14, 17 May 2009 (→unlock this: Can you explain why it was locked since you've stated "it is locked for a reason"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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??:

<!-- Please stop changing the language for Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you understand the bosnian language, then you will know that the songtext is in bosnian. There is a mistake in the reference. -->

There are several problems with this:

  1. Determining disputed article content by personal views made from listening to a song without sources is a type of original research.
  2. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. Hence content in articles should reflect what sources actually say.
  3. 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 redpropagandadeeds 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]
Source 1 and source 2 - repeating them because when I clicked on them I came back to this page ;-)
I ran the first one through an online translation tool and got this - it looks to me that the reference is fine. If no one objects I'm going to add this in in the next hour or so. To be honest, this seems to be such a contentious issue that I think multiple references are a good idea, so I'll add this reference to the existing one, and in the meantime I'll run your second reference through a translator. Cheers! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that works. Someone had put all three languages so I just changed it to Serbo-Croatian for the time being because according to the article, it seems to be the general term to refer to all three languages. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serbo-Croatian language is not a language of communication, but an academic phrase, that phrase is used by those supporting brotherhood and unity policy and has nothing to do with reality. In fact the Republic of Serbia was the last country to drop the official nature of that language of the Yugoslavs (now found in rare numbers), Serbia changed its official language from the greater nationalistic Serbo-Croatian to just Serbian in 2006. This is why it is unacceptable to use Serbo-Croatian as a general term and as the term describing languages in this era. -- Imbris (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? Maybe an alternative? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should preach me about being constructive? The only way is to list in alphabetical order Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multicultural society, so nobody should mind the full list of its official languages. -- Imbris (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will not be sung in a selection of languages. According to the above we have found that Bosnian is what it is considered to be sung in. Please provide a source that specifically says it is sung in all of those. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your negative approach is vibrant, stop playing the role of defender of great unity, you know what I mean (Dzole said it best). See Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian. -- Imbris (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we can do exactly that, unless a reference can be found that says it is sung in more than one language - what we claim in the article needs to be verifiable, i.e. it needs to be supported by one or more reference and not be the product of original reserach. Frankly I'm beginning to understand why eurovision.tv make no mention of the language: here, here or here. At this point I'm going to suggest that we list the language as "disputed, a Serbo-croat language" and provide references previously used to support Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian with a footnote explaining that sources disagree and no official statement has yet been issued. I don't think that this will end the removal/replacement of cited text, but we can deal with that if and when it occurs. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I've asked for some wider input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Eurovision Song Contest 2009. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list should rather be left blank instead of your proposal "disputed, a Serbo-Croatian language". Also in previous ESCs the entry was in the Official languages of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. So what is the problem on listing the three. -- Imbris (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we can't cite a reference that lists all three. Obviously if such a reference could be found that would be great.
Why do you feel that the entry should be left blank? I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, I'm just curious as to why you think it's a good solution.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the Constitution of the country, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is no contest, but a hand picked selection based on the decisions of the few. In BiH everything must be writen three times.
Blank is better than OR, and it would be pure OR to list extinct languages like Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language. The blank field would lead people to even more questions, and that would be good (in my book).
That blank field could have a reference towards the Constitution of the country and to all other reliable sources that claim the language of the song.
Imbris (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the article should state the language is Serbo-Croatian; I'm saying that it could say "a Serbo-Croatian language", i.e. a language that has it's roots in the common language (I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase that if the term "Serbo-Croatian" isn't appropriate). I'm not suggesting any WP:OR - the references thus far provided are all for different languages derived from a common ancestor - I'm suggesting we acknowledge this, and list the ancestor instead of trying to decide which of the competing candidates (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) should be listed.
Citing the BiH constition would not be OK: we need to cite something that informs the reader what language the song is sung in, not leave the reader interpreting the constitution and potentially arriving at a very confused conclusion (e.g. "is the song sung simultaneously in three languages? Or are all three languages represented in the song?")
Whatever decision we reach, some sort of foot note does seem like the logical way forward - this issue is clearly confusing, and we need to make some attempt to explain the confusion to the reader.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have understood you perfectly, you want the name of a non-exsisting language to be written with a slight grammatical a in prefix and this would be by your account a good way to give the reader more info?
The reader would not get more info by using that particular phrase because Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are not ofspring of the Croatian or Serbian language (Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, etc.). The Croatian or Serbian language as it was officialy been called in Croatia was an artificial Constitutional phrase, as was during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Serbo-Croato-Slovene language.
The reader should be presented by the current constitutional phrase, that being Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (simmilar language is one of the official languages at the Hague tribunal). This is the safest way to go. And it is not original research, quoting the constitution of the land in question.
Even if some would say that Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have the Deyton Constitution, but the 1992 Constitution is still valid because the Dayton has not proclaimed it invalid.
If not using the BCS formula, then leave the field in the table blank and let the future decide on it.
With respect. -- Imbris (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the constitution says specifically that "Bistra voda" is sung in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, which it most likely does not, then it is a textbook example of original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want the name of a language-family used, with an explanation accompanying it. If you're unhappy with the term "Serbo-Croat", that's fine - all I'm after is to list the name of the language-family that the three languages (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) belong to, with an accompanying note explaining that different sources have attributed the song to each of these three languages, and that all three languages belong to a common language-family. The reason I feel this is a good solution is that it notes that several differing sources exist, attributing the song to one of several languages, and it gives the reader sufficient information to understand why this is the case - without bogging them down in constitutional law. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever said we should list the language as "disputed", we shouldn't. We should only list something as disputed if it's disputed in the real world (and of relevance). A dispute here on the talk page does not warrant marking something as disputed in the article. BalkanFever 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was me, and point taken. My aim was to have a note explaining that different sources say different things, rather than suggesting that there was an actual dispute. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should set the language set to "Bosnian". I believe that the source supporting that, an online newspaper, is the only reliable source. The source claiming the language is Serbian, I believe was this, and has now removed all mention of the language. The third source, a personal homepage that in a footnote is claiming that the language is Croatian, is a bit self-contadicting. Also further down in the comments, the person who added that footnote states that it is wrong and will be corrected to Bosnian as a response to a comment.
PS. The rest of my comment is a bit OR, but I feel the need to comment on the arguments at 4lyrics. Both the argument claiming Croatian and the one claiming Bosnian are wrong since the spelling "ij", "i" and "e" is not guaranteed to always differ between the languages as explained in the entries for the these languages. Cheers 83.227.37.170 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To someone who does not know anything about the language situation, Bosnian would surely make the most sense as the country the song is from is Bosnia, but I kinda like Flag's idea of naming the language family because one could technically argue that it is sung in any of the languages since they are so close. 4Lyrics is not a "homepage" it is a reputable website specializing in Eurovision lyrics, just as reliable as say ESCToday and Oikotimes, which specialize in news. It's natural for webmasters to correct errors on their pages, even big newspapers and such do that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if 4lyrics is a reliable source I'd tend to agree that "Bosnian" would make the most sense - possibly with a footnote explaining the similarities with other languages. Like you, I'm unfamiliar with the language situation - when I was at school we learnt about "Serbo-Croat languages", but that was a long, long, time ago and I gather the academic consensus has changed since then - I suspect that's what Imbris is picking up on - my incorrect terminology (which was in no way intended to be partisan or offensive, apologies if anyone took it that way). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source 4lyrics speaks of the song being sung in Croatian, this was confirmed by the translators Todd B and Luke Fisher + the moderators comment of Nathan Waddell. Since the song represents Bosnia and Herzegovina it should list also Bosnian language. -- Imbris (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that suggestion is that it isn't clear to anyone unfamiliar with Bosnian and Croatian why "Bosnian" would be listed when the reference says only "Croatian". After all, other nations' songs are sung in a non-native language, yet are only listed as being sung in one language. I realise in this case Bosnian is very similar to Croatian, but I'm unconvinced that this similarity is sufficient to justify making a claim unsupported by the reference. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least one reliable source that we could use, supporting that the language is Bosnian. My problem with the 4lyrics source is that it is in some way disputed further down in the comments. Also being a native speaker I would say that the languages are similar enough that the short lyrics aren't enough to identify the language completely. One has to listen to the pronunciation. As the Wikipedia pages of these languages says; It is true that Serbian usually changes "ije" to "e", but not always. It is also true that Croatian usually uses different name for the month May, but not always. This leads of course to a lot of confusion if only viewing the text. Also, stating in the article that the song is in Serbo-Croation or all tree languages, simply because of the similarities, one could do the same thing for the Serbian and Croatian entry, 83.227.*-guy 83.227.39.1 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - any reason why we can't just say "Bosnian" (i.e. make no mention of Croatian or Serbian), using one or both of the references for Bosnian provided above? When I checked out the references they looked OK to me - i.e. they seemed to be reliable. (stating "a Serbo-Croatian language" is a less-than ideal solution, and once I think we should only consider if we're unable to find a satisfactory reference to support a more specific claim. I suspect - though I can't see any references right now - that both the Croatian and Serbian entries have references supporting the claims made by those entries). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Greater nationalistic Serbo-Croatian" mean? :D

I've changed from "Bosnian, Croatian" to just "Croatian", because the source just says so - nowhere does it say Bosnian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivast (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The web page for the source is currently down for some reason, a cached version can be found at [1]. If the web page is down permanently then a web archive or similar link can be provided instead, sources should not normally be removed purely because the linked web page is dead. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual entries

Resolved

You may not notice because we've used it for a while and recognize it, but "individual entries" does not really make sense. Individual entries as opposed to overall entries? It seems like it should be links to the songs since they are the "entries" by the countries "individually", but that is not what it is. The template should technically be "Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009" as that is its matching category and I think the subject of the articles would be much more obvious. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 'Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009' would be a better name for the section and template given what the template actually does i.e. show the countries, not the actual entries. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that you responded lol. Should I start to move them or do you think I will run into some resistance? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to save you from a long response, just know I agree on the change. Afkatk (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then I will go through and change them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that John Casey designed the 1997 set

I note that the article states that John Casey designed the set in 1997 in Dublin, and this information is duly referenced. However, I believe that this is not true. IMBD lists Paula Farrell as the production designer. In the souvenir programme for 1997, Paula Farrell is also given credit, and at the time of the contest there were several interviews with her about her design -but I can't find anything online. John Casey worked as a design assistant on the last three Dublin contests, including 1994 which Paula Farrell also designed, and 1995 when the chief designer was Alan Farquharson.

89.100.216.54 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It states that he was "involved" in '94 and '95, not that he did it himself. The article does assert that he did it all in '97 though. IMDB is not a great source, and it could be that Paula Farrell helped in '97 and was the only one available for comment, we don't know, so keep looking for another source if you would like to change it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Jan Jan' or 'Nor Par'?

What song title is Armenia's song? I wonder because it is edited a bit about this and it would be good to find the name of the song has! /85.230.110.58 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official Eurovision Song Contest website, eurovision.tv, it's Jan Jan. I have no idea where "Nor Par" is coming from. Cheers, This flag once was redjokespranks 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where it is coming from either and it's starting to get annoying. Even if the song had an alternative name, this article only reflects the name it used at Eurovision. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well some Swedish web sites are calling the song "Nor Par", and on the Swedish Wikipedia they will call it "Nor Par (Jan Jan)" /85.230.111.234 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well the Swedish wiki calls it Jan Jan now ;) The EBU has already announced its name as "Jan Jan", it can't be the other. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they are call it 'Nor Par (Jan Jan)'. /85.230.111.36 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EBU call it Jan Jan, so per previous precedent that should be the name used in this article. Other projects may be different for various reasons, with this kind of thing being determined by local consensus. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators and Spokespersons

Hi, don't you want start now the list of this theme? In portuguese wikipedia, i've started already, and you can wacth rigth here (to spokepersons) and here (for the commentators) bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached last year at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008 to not have a list of commentators and spokespersons within the main ESC year article (e.g. this one) but to have them mentioned on the individual entry pages. There has not been any discussion on creating a separate page for commentators and spokespersons though, and I do not object to it. What is done on other Wikipedia project languages is up to local consensus on that project. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Broadcasting

Does anyone know if the ESC will be broadcast in Georgia (on Georgian Public TV) now that it has withdrawn?? If so, we need to put it under the broadcasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.124.3 (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Rehearsals

I've scanned the article completely, and I do not have a clue when the rehearsals are on. Does anyone know? Leave a comment on my talk page. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the first rehearsals will occur next sunday (May 3rd), with the rehearsals of the opening and interval acts, the rehearsals of the countries acts will star that week to, I think it will be on May 11th (one day before the 1st semi-final), but I've read that the "countries" will go to Moscow in the beginning of May, so the rehearsals should start at least May 3rd. The stage is almost finished, and they are making/producings the ligths sistems to each music (and all the effects and things like that), on April 23rd the stage was 80% ready :) João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Well, what brings me where now, is that is happening a petiton to bring back Italy to the ESC 2010. So lets all sing it [2] bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Trying to add a new section with reference but they're spam blocked

Can anyone help with this?

I tried to add this but apparently one or more of my refernces is spam blocked. Any idea how I can find out which one without removing and re-subitting each one by one?

Problem sorted!!!! (It was a site about petitions so wise to note for future refernce that that word is in the spam list!)

--Mapmark (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Octoshape

I haven't been able to find any reference to the Octoshape plugin on the eurovision.tv page, or on the Octoshape webpage. Is there any source stating that Octoshape will in fact be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.199.119 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to watch it, it will say you need Octoshape. There is no stream to try as of yet, so you will not get that prompt. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of contraversial content

The content I added last night about the growing anger over Russia's human rights record and potential demonstration centrered around Eurovision is IMHO a perfectly legitimate issue for this wiki page but was removed without anyone stating a reason. If the content goes against Wiki policy then of course it should be removed but just because material is contraversial is not a reason to remove it. In fact it is our duty to reflect all the genuine issues.

The policy of Wiki is clear: "When adding content to this page which may be challenged, it must be verified by a reliable source"; all my sources were certified and reliable. "Disputed content which is not sourced appropriately will to be removed" This is fair enough and I agree with it, but this was not the case in this instance - the content is not disputed, it is fact and was entered entirely honourably.

If you want to remove this content please explain why on your notes. Otherwise such action could potentially be considered vandalism and the remover may be considered for action him/herself. --Mapmark (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing was sensationalistic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I may try to work in this since its related enough, but please, how you wrote it isn't good. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK ViperSnake, thanks for taking the time to write that. I partly accept your crticism, perhaps there were some elements of my contribution that may appear a tad sensational. I would ask you to bear in mind though that such discrimination from the Moscow Mayor has caused deep offence to people and that while I accept your point about soapboxes, this is perfectly legitimate issue for the page - especially considering the audience,the inflamaory nature of the Mayors remarks and the forthcoming demonstration on the very day of the contest. I will attempt to make a re-write and of course you can attempt that too. I am not precious about my writing style and I'm happy to make changes suggested by constructive criticism. We are all asked to respect each other as wikipedians and I thank you for your words, but I hope that you can see how that for someone to have simply deleted all mention of the situation (not sure who that was) without even the midicom of an explanation, such behaviour can easily inflame a delicate situation. Best wishes, Mark --Mapmark (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely re-wrote the section, the protests do seem a bit notable for mentioning, so I improved the sourcing and style of it. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see where you are coming from and much admire what you've done there ViperSnake. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this issue and I think you've done it well and it will help me in writing future contributions of the Wikipedia. Cheers, Mark--Mapmark (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HD broadcast

Any list of those who send the event in HD? Many sports championships articles here on Wiki have an additional list of HD broadcasters. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think its necessary to go into that much detail. A broadcast is a broadcast. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be a List of Eurovision Song Contest broadcasters which could include HD info chandler ··· 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

does anyone know when the results of the 1st semi-final get out? i'm waiting them since yesterday, but neuther eurovition.tv, estoday or teh oiktimes give it... :( since I remember it's not very common the results take such a long time to get out of EBU or i'm wrong? bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've just read that the results of the semmi-finals just get out after the big final, so we have to wait until saturday/sunday, to know who wim both semi-finals :S (you can read it here in spanish) João P. M. Lima (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESC2010: Breaking News

Eurovision 2010 will be held on May 18,20, and 22- these are provisional dates, but incidentally the final is schedules for the same day as that of the Champions League, said Svante few minuts ago :D (but i don't like very much the ideia of the final be in the same day of the final of the Champions League :S João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then its time to start a Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article. There is also the news from earlier that the EBU will give an extra effort to bring back Italy, Austria and Monaco to ESC2010 for example. And its only days left until we know next years host city to. Thats my suggestions.--Judo112 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not start it. They will delete it once again like they always do. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL There is no need to start an article, as a future contest is not guaranteed.doktorb wordsdeeds 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is pure bull... The ESC is an annual contest that's been held 54 years in a row. Ratings are higher than ever. Of course 2010's contest has been guaranteed for a very long time. There is a greater chance that there will be an ESC in 2011 and 2012 than that there will be Olympic Summer Games in 2020, yet I don't see a WP:CRYSTAL tag anywhere on the 2020, 2024 or 2028 Summer Games pages. TrondM (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think that is the time to do it... it only left 3 days to know the host city, we alredy know the dates, and 3 countries are confirm. The semi-final voting will change, it will be equal to the final 50/50 and not like past year and this one, where only one country is saved by jury (but this has to be confirm by EBU yet, it should be in the last press conference, but oiktimes stoped on the ESC2010 dates). I think that is more tham time, portuguese, french, azerbaijan, russa, etc wikipedias have already criated the article, i don't belive that they go to delete the article with just 3 days left to know the principal, and the article will not be a "cristal ball", it's more than confirm that the contest will happen, and they can't use the argument that it can expode a nuclear bomb before the contest and the same doesn't happen (like happened to me in portuguese wikipedia last year), because seeing the tinghs like that, we neither know if saturday (or tomorow), the show will realy happen, so, i think that is the time to create it, and if the english wikipedia create the article, in one or to days, most of the wikis that write about eurovision will create them articles to so... LET'S GO!!! ESC 2010 IS HERE!!! :D João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, ESC 2010 is not here. Also talk pages are not forums. Please stay on topic. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you bothered to ask Judo since you went ahead and made the page anyway. It's fine as long as everything is sourced I guess. No "possibles" this year, I want only confirmed. That page will not turn into a maybe zoo again! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain not voting in Semi 2

I went ahead and added a Spanish language source which confirms the details we probably already know, that TVE overran a tennis match and Spain could not vote at all. Mike H. Fierce! 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting order?

How come Norway are listed 17th but voted last in the contest? I'm guessing there's some explanation...  GARDEN  22:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Norway was the runaway winner and they wanted to let the representative cry on-air and thank Europe or whatever he did. Mike H. Fierce! 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The commentators told that they had problems connecting with Norway and so they skipped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.247.187 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could buy that with a country like Azerbaijan all the way out in the middle of nowhere but not in one of the richest nations in the world. Mike H. Fierce! 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let the conspiracy theories start. I bet it was the primeminister of Norway that sent an sms to Putin to make Norway last or else he would invade Russia and insert a new world order with communism... Jørgen88 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An SMS? Surely the PM would be more technologically adept!  GARDEN  22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the US lol xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Table default

Shouldn't the result table be automatically stored by the results..? It's more logically now that the contest is done! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-finals results

The semi-finals results are available here: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/moscow2009/the-participants/semifinal1 and here http://www.eurovision.tv/page/moscow2009/the-participants/semifinal2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidebook (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unlock this

This article has a padlock on it. Please unlock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsinoway (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternatively, since the article is locked for a reason, why don't you post the changes you want made here on the talk page and someone can edit the article for you? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why it was locked since you've stated "it is locked for a reason"? What is the reason, and why is it still locked?99.141.240.227 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Our Mountains - Armenia/Azerbaijan Controversy

Can anyone add We Are Our Mountains Controversy [3][4][5]. DVoit 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Controversy' section lacks 'Georgia's withdrawal' sub-section

Subj Netrat (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was THE controversy."We Don't Wanna Put In - Georgia's Eurovision mockery of Russia"[6]and the article, " ‘We Don't Wanna Put In' deemed too political by the European Broadcasting Union."[7] Strange to not see it mentioned in the controversy section. 99.141.240.227 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/multimedija/foto-galerije/grupa-regina-premijerno-izvela-pjesmu-bistra-voda
  2. ^ http://www.fbradio.eu/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1430
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009&oldid=290434517"