Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2006

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.203.30.167 (talk) at 22:51, 14 June 2006 (→Don't put caps in non-English titles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEurovision Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Controversies

The Netherland's spokeperson in the end of his comments said something like this: "Netherland gives, WITH MUCH PRIDE, 12 points to Turkey!" - is this a political message to Greece?

The Cypriot spokerperson started his comments with "Hi, good evening, I'm calling from Nicosia, the last European capital STILL DIVIDED!" Ooops, another political statement.

The Belgium spokerperson, when reading the Belgium votes, showed a paper which had "WE- a heart drawn meaning LOVE-Kate Ryan" written in its backs, showing the Belgium sorrow for their song didn't go the final.

Don't you want to put these controverises in the article?

Don't put caps in non-English titles

How many times do we have to repeat it in order that our British friends comprehend that. Languages in continental Europe don't use CAPS in song titles, except when there is a clear reference to the name of a person or a name of a geographical location! German is the only exception to that rule. IT IS THAT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND?

1. The above complains of the use of capitals in the English Language. However he or she needs to improve their grammer if they are to complain in English.

...and you your spelling if you are going to complain about other people's language skills particularly if they are from another country. It's grammar, not grammer.
fo' shizzle

2. The Eurovision Song Contest is broadcasted using English as the first language. The vast majority of the songs are sung in this great language of ours. French being the other minor language. Therefore we as the superior and dominant language are ENTITLED TO USE CAPS WHENEVER WE LIKE.

You forgot to add that the majority of songs are sung in American English. British English is useless and nobody in continental Europe is using it.

Making Your Mind Up

Does anyone know how to enter the Eurovision song contest as a UK songwriter?

Thanks.

Bosnia 2006

Is it sure that Hari Varešanovic will represent the country on his own? Cause according to esctoday.com it's the whole group, Hari Mata Hari, that will perform -> http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/5548 Erik 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only Hari will represent Bosnia and Hercegovina. Evilperson 20 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, what is the justification for providing a 'translation' of the Bosnian song title 'Lejla' as 'Layla'? I've amended this a couple of times with the comment that 'Layla' is a transliteration, not a translation, and serves absolutely no useful purpose. (If it stays, then on the same basis there should be a transliteration of 'Ninanajna', the Macedonian entry.) Any thoughts?Peeper 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is plain stupid, I don't understand why would anybody insist on that. I am taking the "translation" off now, we'll see what hapeens. Bravada, talk - 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

There is no set limit to how long a entry has to be. Even the Eurovision sites have mini bio's like that. This is perfectly acceptable, because it shows why An na Vissi is good for Eurovision 2006. It states her success in the USA. And about the picture, I am good friends, with Anna Vissi's personal assistant. He says that they are planning to use pictures from Madame Figaro, since they are good pictures. 68.45.82.68 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. You are NOT allowed to take something out that is not rubbish, that another author wants in there. I dont see anyone else complaining or chaning it than you. Please leave the info alone. And remember the 3 revert rule. You are not allowed to change a SINGLE article more than 3 times a day. That means the whole Eurovision 2006 article. 68.45.82.68 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the rules you quote. The three revert rule is for vandalism and you are aloud to change an article more than three time a day, your just not aloud to revert back to previous information. The Greek section is not the only section that needs to be edited. A couple of sentences explaining career accomplishments is enough but three whole paragraphs is too much. If people want to read more information, you can posts more life story on the Anna Vissi page. Evilperson 20 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm Evilperson 20, it says under Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:
The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians.
The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.
This rule does not apply to:
* self-reverts
* correction of simple vandalism 68.45.82.68 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it does. Simple vandalism is "george w bush is gay". Removing material too detailed for the main article and duplicated from elsewhere is not vandalism at all. Hedley 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What are you talking about? I am talking about the 3RR rule. Evilperson 20, makes WAY more than 3 reviotons a day. 68.45.82.68 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont make reversions more than 3 times a day. I think you need to learn what a revert is! What I do is update the article. Evilperson 20 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am doing. I am updating the Greek part with information. 68.45.82.68 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally you've hit the point of my constant reduction of the Greek info. As you can see the other countries have two short paragraphs. The first one explains the national final, the winner, and general info about the song. The second is a brief introduction to the artist which might be followed by a chart of participants for that national final. The biography of Anna Vissi is way to long and what is still there must be shortened by the time she chooses her song. It is too much uneeded information that can be easily found by clicking on Anna Vissi. I wont touch anything anymore just as long as in the upcoming weeked before the Greek National Final, you shorten the bio to a couple of sentences and change the photo from a magazine cover to an official picture. If you dont do it, then I will. Evilperson 20 02:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to do that, but there is no set rule anywhere on Wikipedia limiting the length of the section. 68.45.82.68 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a set limit on article length, though, and it's 64KB. This article exceeds it. So yeah, if you want to play by limits, technically that section being too long is making the article too long. Hedley 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me that Wikipedia rule, because I have not seen it anywhere before. I am curious about it. Im not saying ur wrong, im just saying ive never seen it. Greekboy 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is Wikipedia:Article Size, however this article is already broken up into different sections so it is okay, but that doesnt mean that it should contain an entire bio of someone. After someone is chosen to represent a country, I summarize the general info into a couple of sentences and another paragraph explaining the artist which is around 5 short sentences. The Greek bio is still too long so I'll have to edit that. Evilperson 20 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay everything is fine now with all the sections, the update on my paragrah is okay, so the only thing that should be added to the Greek section is the list of songs competing during the nf. Evilperson 20 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.45.82.68 please stop adding that Anna Vissi is the number one in Greece. In case you haven't noticed, this is Wikipedia, not a Vissi fan site. In fact I think there is way too much information in the Eurovision article about Vissi, whoever is interested they can always visit her page. --83.146.62.97 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you! Someone else see's eye-to-eye with me. There is too much information in the Greek Section! This also creates a bias towards the other countries since the others only have small paragraphs with 2-3 sentences in them describing their career. Evilperson 20 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 68.45.82.68 I see you have a history with adding trivia. The Eurovision page is not the place to put every possible bit of information you happen to know about Anna Vissi. Let's keep it to a minimum. Do you think Vissi is the only one promoting her song? Why nobody else has put it in their respective pages? --Avg 04:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not trivia. All the other entrys have information about the artist's video clip and promo tour. And it has to do with the entry this year. STOP CHANGING IT! 68.45.82.68 14:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, it is not all the other entries, it is only Greece and Cyprus which have references to promo tours. MLA 14:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really feel a need to write so much about the Greek entry, create Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, following the lead of Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996, et al. Esteffect 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright fine. If you want to take out the video clip information and promo tour info, then I should remove info promoting the other entrys too. Right? For example:
  • Turkey: TRT has chosen the song that Sibel will sing, and presented the video clip which involves Sibel wearing a red hat with the Turkish flag.
  • Monaco: The official video clip for the song was recorded on the 1st and 2nd of March
I can go on. I saw you took out Cyprus' information about her new cd that "why do the angels cry" is on. I can find examples ALL through out the article with similar information for other artist's. 68.45.82.68 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert to the Greece section now means that it is the only one that mentions a promo tour. You have identified the only two entries as well as Greece that mention the video. I think that is a less obvious removal as it does have some reference to the Eurovision but I still think it worth removing as it is minor information of close to zero notability. When I initially went through the article, it was to look for those entries with information about their own marketing and it was only Greece and Cyprus. Now it is only Greece which references the artist's marketing. MLA 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Turkey, that is just a note from when TRT officially presented the song which also included the presentation of the video. For Monaco, you put that information there so I can hardly see how you can use it as an example. That information should be removed as well. Evilperson 20 16:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.45.82.68, you are one revert (on the removal of promo information) away from violating WP:3RR. You are very much on your own in a lot of your arguments, and I still personally believe the detail on Vissi in the Greek sub-section is ridiculous. Esteffect 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reduce the size of the Greek sub-section many times, but 68.45.82.68 keeps changing it back to a huge paragraph that goes in depth. He/She claims that all her successes need to be outlined but if other users are seriously interested in reading more about Anna Vissi, they can click on Anna Vissi. I will reduce the information again and I hope the other users can help me in keeping it this way. Evilperson 20 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS VERY UNFAIR! How come the other countrey are allowed to have the success of the singer in there section but not Greece? Look at belgium! It outlines kate ryans success with her english album! VERY UNFAIR. I will wait 24 hours til I am going to add it in again. I will add it in everyday until it is left alone. It is not fair to leave succeuss's of other singers in and take out Greece's. If you want no success's at all, then take them ALL out. And for your information, my information about the video clip comes from ERT. I find this very unfair that you take out Greece's parts, but leave every other country as is. 68.45.82.68 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the size of Greece's section in this talk page. You have been doing the same thing for one and a half month. Don't you really understand that you're stressing everybody's patience here? Please try to understand a very simply thing. What is this article about? Is it about Anna Vissi? No. Is it even about the specifics of the Greek song at Eurovision? No. This is a place to provide a SUMMARY for the Greek entry, as a guide to someone who would browse through all entries. If you want to put more details, do so in their relevant pages. If there aren't relevant pages, create one. Browsing through the countries entries, I've found that in the summary there is a de facto consensus of putting two paragraphs of 4-6 lines each, one about the song and the other about the artist. This seems like a good guideline for this kind of article. --Avg 19:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me this question. Why is it that the other countrys are allowed to have their current released cd in the info, as well as international successes, and Greece isnt? You say that it dosnt have to do with the article. If thats true, then shouldnt all the other countrys be fixed too? 68.45.82.68 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are being awkward. If you look at this page, no-one but you is arguing the same points that you are. If you add it every day, you won't be helping anyone. I've already suggested creating Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, then making that a sub-article for the section. As for other countries - The length of the information is nowhere near that of Greece's. Esteffect 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it will look VERY stupid to have an article with just 2 paragraphs that should be on the eurovision 2006 page anyway.68.45.82.68 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you follow the lead of Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003, you could expand it. I think it is ok as it is right now, though, as long as it isn't expanded again. Esteffect 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

Las Ketchup is not the chosen participant. It is only a rumour. If in fact they are chosen to represent Spain... then this information can be posted in the chart. Please stop putting incorrect information in the chart. Evilperson 20 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Ketchup

Now they are, hehe. :P Even doing pretty good in the Spanish chart. :o) Erik 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Nagorno karabak

This isnt recognised by any state - not even armenia. It was proclaimed only around the time when the USSR collapsed. When the armenian singer Andrej was born there, it was a part of the Azeri SSR (Azerbaijan soviet socialist republic). I think you should mention this and remove any specific mention to the Nagorno Karabak republic. It just seems to be a way to blurt out nationalism if you allow it to remain.Vank 07:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that there and I dont see a huge problem with it. I summarized his biography and that piece of information was there and I dont plan to change it. Thanks. Evilperson 20 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Azerbaijan to the Nagorno-Karabakh reference as technically Azerbaijan would be the birthplace of anyone who was born in N-K. MLA 10:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's quite incorrect, the birthplace would the Soviet Union, so it would be the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Republic in the Azerbaijani Socialist Soviet Republic of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republic. And by the same logic we should change the currently stated birthplace of someone born in Chişinău or Sarajevo.

Sections?

This article looks like its going to get big when the results of the semi-final and final are posted. So is it neccessary to make a new page for the individual entries to the contest, something like Individual Entries at the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 or something like that? - Nick C 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this will have to happen. I think a week before Eurovision, this information will have to move into a seperate article. Evilperson 20 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just basically just cutting and pasting the section on the Individual entries to a new page, as I think that all of the information about selecting the song for each country should be kept, unlike previous pages of the Eurovision Song Contest on Wikipedia, which deleted some parts to keep the information on the countries in the main article. - Nick C 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright if I move the entries to Countries at the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 now? - Nick C 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't because I don't think the main contribtors have seen this yet. Esteffect 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, I dont think we should move the individual entries to a seperate page because this information is more useful if it is on the same page was the scores and the other information and charts. This article is split up into different sections so it has been made easier to read which follows Wikipedia's length rule. Evilperson 20 23:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long at it does not exceed the maximun size rule, and people do not remove any information from these sections, it can be kept in the main article. - Nick C 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISRAEL

Here are two pictures of singer Eddie Butler who will represent Israel this year. [1]--80.230.43.173 12:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Serbia and Montenegro

I deleted the statement 'The Montenegrin juries gave no points at all to Serbian entries' becuase it is factually false. According to voting records on esctoday.com (http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/5764), Montenegrin juries gave points to 15 of the 24 entries, and as only 12 were Montenegrin obviously some Serb songs got points. I did leave in the comment that the two Serb favourites recieved no points from Montenegro, as I felt that that was relevant.88.96.90.62 18:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity Serbia & Montenegro will not be competing. This will seriously affect Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and possibly Macedonia, now that the 7-12 point guaranteed system has been rocked. Not only can these countries not depend on points from friends but they have to award so many to someone else, that means go outside of the family tradition! The question will be, to whom? The Celt 8 Apr 2006

New Countries

Does anyone know if there are there any countries entering the contest for the first time this year? If not it must be the first time in a little while. --Neo 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running Order

The draw for the semi-final, final and voting have been made. Not sure how to put this into the article, so here is the info for reference. It can be moved into the article if a place can be found for it... 

Semi-Final
  1. Armenia
  2. Bulgaria
  3. Slovenia
  4. Andorra
  5. Belarus
  6. Albania
  7. Belgium
  8. Ireland
  9. Cyprus
  10. Monaco
  11. FYR Macedonia
  12. Poland
  13. Russia
  14. Turkey
  15. Ukraine
  16. Finland
  17. The Netherlands
  18. Lithuania
  19. Portugal
  20. Sweden
  21. Estonia
  22. Bosnia & Herzegovina
  23. Iceland
Final
  1. Switzerland
  2. Moldova
  3. Israel
  4. Latvia
  5. Norway
  6. Spain
  7. Malta
  8. Germany
  9. Denmark
  10. semifinal qualifier
  11. semifinal qualifier
  12. Romania
  13. semifinal qualifier
  14. semifinal qualifier
  15. United Kingdom
  16. Greece
  17. semifinal qualifier
  18. semifinal qualifier
  19. France
  20. Croatia
  21. semifinal qualifier
  22. semifinal qualifier
  23. semifinal qualifier
  24. semifinal qualifier

Voting Order

  1. Slovenia
  2. Andorra
  3. Romania
  4. Denmark
  5. Latvia
  6. Portugal
  7. Sweden
  8. Finland
  9. Belgium
  10. Croatia
  11. Serbia & Montenegro
  12. Norway
  13. Estonia
  14. Ireland
  15. Malta
  16. Lithuania
  17. Cyprus
  18. The Netherlands
  19. Switzerland
  20. Ukraine
  21. Russia
  22. Poland
  23. United Kingdom
  24. Armenia
  25. France
  26. Belarus
  27. Germany
  28. Spain
  29. Moldova
  30. Bosnia & Herzegovina
  31. Iceland
  32. Monaco
  33. Israel
  34. Albania
  35. Greece
  36. Bulgaria
  37. Macedonia
  38. Turkey

doktorb | words 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New TOC

Hi, I tried out a new TOC for the article as the current one seems really long, and not too useful - you can check it out at [2]. Would people please give comments on it, and whether they prefer it to the current? --Neo 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superb

This is EXCELLENT, I think we should include it immediately! :O) I have been longing for something like this for a long time in fact... Great work! :) Erik 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the guy that had never seen such a feature before

On March 21, just a few minutes after Mr. Neil Tarrant added the new, compact Table of contents (TOC), another user removed it again, with the explanation that he had never seen it used before. Well, to his (and others) information, Wikipedia has its very own page dedicated to all types of Tables of contents, including the compact ones and the customized ones. Here is that page... :O)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Section#Table_of_contents_.28TOC.29 Erik 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this important enought to be included?

A controversy sparked serounding Turkey's Eurovision website in which the administrators have added a category titled 'Armenian Terror' including anti-Armenian and Armenian genocide revisionist extremist sites as well as lunching an anti-Armenian campaign in their columns. In the same time excluding the Armenian flag from the rest of the flags in their sections 'Eurovision Song Contest.' Oikotimes.com requested eurovision-turkey.com to redraw the columns because it wasn't endorsed by them as a result the eurovision-turkey answered by swearing and adveritising the website as if the columns were undorsed by Oikotimes.com, who announced it will be taking legal actions against the webmaster of the website and its team.

This announcement was followed by a joint request by Eurovision Greece, Israel and Netherlands to Eurovision Turkey to remove those contents from its website condemning any use of politics in such an unethical way, followed also by Escsweden and Eurovision Croatia cutting ties with the Turkish Eurovision website and announced they will research another Turkish parterner. Fad (ix) 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this can be sourced and verified then it would be worth having on the individual entries of Turkey and Armenia. Serbia & Montenegro only gets a very brief para here despite being a controversy with a direct impact on this Eurovision. MLA 08:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fan site that did it, not the official one. The article is already too long as it is. The last thing we need on here are rumours/gossip/political bickering/soapbox opinions.

All the individual articles..

Are an absolute formatting mess. Esteffect 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lordi and the pyrotechnics dispute

There should be a mention of Lordi's current predicament. The German company that was supposed to provide the pyrotechnics for Lordi's performance slapped them with an insanely large bill and as a result YLE sent a formal protest which means that unless the price is cut Lordi will not perform. (HM)


Live: Semi-final

Here we go! └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Belgium and Bulgaria didn't make it :S How could this happen!? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easy to see why Belgium didn't make it and probably never will, we don't have loving neighbors. The Scandinavians, the Balkan, de Cyprio-Greek connection, the Russian-Israel connection, former Soviet unity etc ... it doesn't exist over here with large neighbours like Germany and France. Only Belgium and the Netherland will most likely give more than 6 for eachother, though never 12. Tele-voting makes it virtually impossible for smaller nations today with few neighbors, like Ireland, Iceland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal... I don't see any of these winning it ever again. 81.83.186.203 12:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's sadly true. I know many people who keep the ESC in total disdain, but were really big fans of Kate Ryan's entry and possibly many of such "ESC converts" voted, but if the current voting is kept, it still won;t change much. I was thinking of that after the final night and I believe there should just be a pan-European televoting, one SMS/impulse is one vote for a song wherever it is placed. Then you caqn use Skype, national minorities, split yourself into eight countries or whatever.
This solution would also eliminate the long, boring and embarassing "voting" section of the show, featuring spectacular examples of poor or non-existent English (and I'm not speaking of francophone countries here) and would help avoid disasters such as raunchy old guys trying to arrange for a romp with the presenter (to which the latter was not so adverse as we might have expected), Moldovan 80s vampire nullifying the country's efforts to come accross as modern or Lukashenko's spokeswoman making sure the gas from Russia won't be cut. Bravada Talk to me! 12:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish commentator

The article says Eimear Quinn will commentate in Ireland. I don't think this is true, as Marty Whelan has performed this function for many years and is commentating the semi-final as I write this. Perhaps Eimear Quinn will announce Ireland's votes, is that what's meant?--Dub8lad1 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYR Macedonia

Now that they got to the final, I just hope they won't say anything provocative like "Good evening from Macedonia" to a Greek audience. If something like that happens, except A LOT of booing. --   Avg    01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey in the table

According to the latest news from the final dress rehearsal, the Turkish song will be performed in Turkish, English and Greek. Should something like this be changed in the table with the language of the song? Here is a link to the news report: http://esctoday.com/news/read/6186 Loool 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG.

We just won. :) - ulayiti (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ! so where next year ? Helsinki ? Hektor 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! See you there! :) - ulayiti (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Hopefully this makes up for Finland's dismal record 3 'Nul points'!! Your winning song has admittedly grown on me quite a lot.......when's the CD album coming out!!! ^^ Lady BlahDeBlah 22:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, gratz to Lordi! Kinda reflects all the really good bands to come out of finland in the recent years, such as HIM, Nightwish and Children of Bodom. I'm Surprised to see that Lordi are an old band actually, nearly 15 years old! Maybe next year because of rock winning Eurovision, there will be a lot more rock in Eurovision? I'd certainly welcome it. Even if its only bands playing their OWN INSTRUMENTS rather than playing to a backing track. ROCK ON FINLAND!!!! 194.66.200.1 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, Finland's been doing so badly in the ESC that 'Finland, zero points' has become somewhat of a running joke over here... I'm not such a big fan of Lordi, but I still can't believe that we've actually won :) - ulayiti (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yaaah! I just happy as a finn living in Sweden, that we just one time beat sweden in something! :) next year I think that many people have understand that you can have something litle more modern and rocking in the ESC ! ! But now we will celebrate Finland and Lordi! Nähdään ensi vuonna stadissa!Dr.Poison 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finland, flanked by the Baltic countries, the Scandinavians and Russia. We will never see another winner from western Europe ever again! -- Boothman /tɔːk/. 12:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It wasn't just neighbour voting in Finland's case; they got 12 points from Greece, Poland and the UK, and 10 from Andorra, Croatia, Germany, Ireland, and Spain. Hard Rock Hallelujah was the most original song in the Eurovision for many years, and the group themselves were unprecedented. If the western European countries want to win again, they need to do something similar, or at least sing songs that have pan-European appeal. Monotonous dirges (France), country-and-western (Germany), or bizarre sub-hiphop performed by thirtysomething DJs surrounded by naughty schoolgirls (UK) aren't going to do it. Deadlock 12:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the UK's entry this year, my opinion is that it was a good idea that fell on its face. Rapping backed by a chorus of schoolgirls could've been a winning combination — it's just that the rapping was insipid and the schoolgirls were plain. Also, the timing couldn't have been worse — you just can't compete for the novelty vote against guys singing hard rock in rubber masks. (As it happens, I did vote for the UK this year. That was an attempt at tactical voting, though; I figured they couldn't possibly be a credible threat to Lordi, but might steal a point or two from someone else...) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should main infobox really contain a "Nul points" section?

I don't think "Nul points" is really that relevant that it needs to be mentioned in the main infobox. Anybody disagree? Sergeyy 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should retain it!! The 'Nul points' aspect has always been a part of Eurovision, especially when in comes to laughing at them!!! Lady BlahDeBlah 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you think "laughing at others" belongs into an encyclopedia? Sergeyy 22:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sure belongs in Eurovision. Lady BlahDeBlah 22:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol
Okay, I'll sum this up as "no serious opposition" and delete it soon. Sergeyy 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sergeyy, may I suggest you consider contributing to the WikiProject Eurovision [3]? It's about the standard format for Eurovision Wiki entries. I think every past Eurovision has a "Nul points" section, so really your suggestion is about changing the global template rather than just this one wiki entry. If a change is to be made, it must be made to *all* the yearly Eurovision wiki pages, so I think you should hold off on deleting it just yet. 172.216.110.214 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I mentioned it there to get some more feedback. Sergeyy 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic

Well...another year, another Eurovision! Bosnia had the best song - though fate had Finland become the winners! Great costumes anyhow! - D-Katana 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I thought Malta, Norway and Armenia were the best songs, though I suppose the innovative took the gamble and win!! Sucks to all those who thought Lordi were 'satanic'! Lady BlahDeBlah 22:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The ones crying foul over Satanism were ultra conservatives anyhow. The lead singer had a pepsi bottle as he walked on stage...what kind of Satanist is that - don't they just drink blood and such?! :) -- D-Katana 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know nothing :D Sweden had the best EUROVISION song (Estonia had close second), though Finland went over the top to show people what they wanted to see. And they duly won (congratulations to everybody who feels like being congratulated). Now I wonder what imitations/travesty/aftertaste of the Lordi we will see in Helsinki (just like Ruslana brought us the apalling performances of Ukraine and Armenia this year).
I also think that this year had a record number of participants who couldn't actually sing, plus a record number of glitches and generally poor preparation. Bravada Talk to me! 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, the standards of the songs were certainly up on the last few Eurovisions. Sure you had your generic sexy-lady pop tunes - but there were some geniune quality tracks that were entertaining. Sweden's song was also good - though not many predicted that Finland would be so darkly flamboyant and forge ahead to win. The UK's entry was pretty bad, and France's was too sombre for such a majestic evening, Russia's dude couldn't sing well... - but other than this, it was okay. Armenia concluded the songs brilliantly with a fine performance. Overall a great Eurovision! -- D-Katana 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The generic sexy-lady pop tunes are at the heart of ESC, that's what it is for. Guys are just for the eye candy (I don't mean the Finnish guys here, Finnish guys are not eye candy in general, so Lordi might have actually benefitted visually from performing in costumes) :D France's entry benefits greatly when it is not sung off-key and not while trying to impersonate Kate Winslet with make-up and hairdo. I've seen the video from the French preselection (I think it was the French preselection) and it came accross as very good. I prefer the "stand up and deliver" theme to throwing yourself on stage during a ballad like Anna Vissi (btw, does anybody else have the impression she actually DID have a playback tape?) Russia's dude is a singing maestro compared to the Armenian impostor. I didn't know there were so big Armenian minorities in Europe! Bravada Talk to me! 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!! Lithuania...I sure hope they put the Eurovision references in the CD.... ^_____^ Lady BlahDeBlah 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

collusion

Newscientist reports of some collusion in this contest.

The original study in Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 9, no. 2
Btw, there was also this "revelation" in the Finnish media before the contest, that the "country of origin" voting restrictions could be circumvented by using Skype --85.156.143.248 00:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE ARE THE WINNERS!

I not like Eurovision very much. But this time I saw it from begging to the end for the first time. And I could say simple - Lithuania ! Simply the best :)

Unsurpassed in the world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9qrO92xDpA

I found it kitsch
Thanks god, opinion like yours year after year is less and less heard :D No really, just think that do you hear in EV? Simple scenario:
Song No1 - na na na love na na love me na na
Song No2 - love love bla bla heart na bla
Song No3 - bla bla love love bla bla LOVE!
Song No4 - no love no life bla bla :D
and so on.
Such songs like LT United, like Finnish, made EV more fun and interesting... now no need to turn TV after 15 min. of show. And maybe if this tradition goes on, maybe Britons and others will stop ignoring this show?
But the dance! ;) Never saw nothing like this :P M.K. 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the kind words, but you are wrong, I voted for the Finnish song, while I still find the "we are the winners, of eurovision" bad tasted. In addition I spent my whole teenage life and early twenties into metal, rock, progressive rock, progressive metal, and various kinds of experimental music so I don't think I'm the kind of person to be stuck into pop culture fanatically.
The Lordi in press conf. sang - We are the winners too :D M.K. 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, it just shows you are totally ignorant concerning Eurovision. It's just about what you said - a collection of great-sounding professional schlagers combined with some failed attempts at those, delivered by a collection of unashamed persona, which makes the show really amusing.
If Carola and Sandra were eye and ear Candy, than the Finnish guys who lost the plot were like a mincemeat pie that went off long time ago and Lithuania's entry tasted like cotton buds. Perhaps previously used cotton buds. I bet next year Finland will outschlager Sweden while all the Balkan countries and Ukraine will try to do a Ruslana with some monster attire. Bravada Talk to me! 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sound great about monster ruslana :) I like a bit of sarcasm :) M.K. 22:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries voting for political ties?

It should also be noted that, as with previous years, many countries voted for their more powerful bordering countries to hold strong political ties with them.

I'm removing this, because as it stands it is nothing but non-neutral, over-simplifying speculation. First off, countries didn't vote; eurovision viewers in them did. You simply can't make a collective statement like that about the millions (?) of voters. Secondly, in many cases cultural proximity / historical & political reasons do affect people's choices, but I'm sure by far the most important criteria for most voters is the catchiness and entertainment value, etc, of the song. --Jonik 10:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we cannot reasonably speculate on the reasons for doing so, it seems clear to me that the voters from one region tend to favour songs from the same region, and I don't see how it would be problematic to mention this simple fact. --Pinnerup 12:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus awards 12 points to.....Greece!! Surprise, surprise! Moldova awards 12 points to.....Romania!! It's the same every year, of course. All the former Yugoslav countries vote for each other, as do the Baltic nations, as do the Scandinavians. It's clear and well documented. -- Boothman /tɔːk/. 12:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The sentence implies that "countries" vote, which is wrong (viewers do), but block voting is a widely known fact and this year was a clear proof it's a very strong trend. Besides, block voting does not work that way at all, Russia (excuse my use of countries here, but it's just a talk page) voted for Armenia not because of their enromous army constantly threatening Russia, didn't it? It's rather cultural (and sometimes political) proximity, plus the big role of ethnic minorities (see Baltic countries voting for Russia and Germany for Turkey). I believe there is an article on that somewhere
It should also be noted that Spain and Portugal suprisingly didn't vote for each other, while Finland managed to gather so many points even in spite of strong block voting tendencies, which might imply there were more votes for the actual song than "for Finland". Bravada Talk to me! 12:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the votes were for the band, not 'for Finland'. This is seen in the fact that Finland got 12, 10 and 8 points from a LOT of countries, while in previously year their points usually totaled 12, 10 or 8. I don't see any reason why countries suddenly would start giving votes to Finland just because of the country, if they haven't done so in the history of the competition. I think this whole 'voting bloc' thing has been developed by Brits in the last 8 or so years, as they have been very unsuccessful in the competition. There is no evidence whatsoever proving this 'voting blocs' theory to apply to Lordi. If they did vote for merely for Finland as a country, it wouldn't have been that unsuccessful. The amount of points that Lordi got is probably higher than all the other points of Finland has got so far added up together. :) --HJV 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina and Waves - Most Dominant?

and the 1997 winning entry "Love Shine A Light", sung by Katrina and the Waves for the United Kingdom, is widely considered the most dominant winning song in contest history

I'm removing this for two reasons. Firstly, you should avoid weasel words, such as "widely considered" and secondly because if that is true, it should at least have a citation.

Thanks, Kel-nage 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted this (but agree with reasons for weasel words and removed them), added in the facts (70 point lead) and added citations to back it up. Thanks Satyricon uk 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did a bit of original research, and it looks like "Love Shine A Light" also beat "Hard Rock Hallelujah" in the percentage of total points scored (15.86% vs. 13.61%). So did a number of other winners, including "Rock'n Roll Kids" (Ireland 1994, 15.59%), "Everybody" (Estonia 2001, 14.84%) and "Fly On the Wings of Love" (Denmark 2000, 14.01%). The theoretical maximum under the current rules, of course, is slightly less than 20.7%. (Feel free to add to the table or fix any mistakes.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your definition of most dominant. In terms of points scored/points possible (percentage of full marks that a song got), it would be "Tu te reconnaitras" by Anne-Marie David in 1974. Having said that, the 1974 contest was very close, she beat Mocedades only by 129-126 roughly off the top of my head. Otherwise, Ein bisschen Frieden in 1982 with Nicole (artist) for Germany won by 160-101, which is a margin of about 37%, even though she got a smaller proportion of the maximum possible mark. The raw points gap is not accurate imho, because the points pool has gone up massively, with ~35 countries entering now instead of in the 1980s with only 20 countries voting. Because a 60 point gap now would only be a 20% victory margin. In terms of large percentage victory margins, it would be Olsen Brothers 2000, Rock'nRoll Kids 1994, Love Shine a Light, and also possibly The Voice? and Ein Bisschen Frieden.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 00:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference to Love Shine a Light. There isn't a hard criteria for dominance. 1997 Katrina and the Waves won 227-157, roughly a 30% margin. In 1982 Ein bisschen Frieden won 161-101, about a 37.5% winning margin - there were less entrants in those days, less votes, so less scope for margin. Please feel free to discuss.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough; you're right there is no hard and fast rule about points dominance. However, it left the explanation after the winning score a bit irrelevant so I've removed that bit as well. Satyricon uk 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Score Sheet

Is anybody kind enough to post the score sheet in the article? I've found the original score sheet in pdf from the official website: [4]

The article about last year has one, so why can't this year's? - 上村七美 | talk 15:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Paul de Leeuw

So, who was he addressing when he made those comments and gave out his number? The guy or Manounos? The infobox in the article says to the guy, Sakis Rouvas. --24.51.227.226 19:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Paul de Leeuw is openly homosexual.

Does automatic qualification create a disadvantage?

Looking at the scoreboard it looks like the 10 countries from the semifinals are all in the top12 and only two pre-qualified countries (Romania 4th and Greece 9th). So does playing your song twice create an advantage? In my opinion atleast the winner (which was my favourite) benefited from the hype after the semifinal. Has there been any criticism of this in the public media? --Laisak 21:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is definately possible, but one year cannot be statistically significant (enough). I propose that the qualifiers me shaded orange (like the semifinalists who made it to the final) and the winner be given some more prominent color/shade. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a message board

I don't want to seem like a kill-joy but this talk page is overrun with message board style comments. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Could editors please consider that when making comments on this talk page. MLA 07:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same number of points

Is it a complete coincidence that they had the same number of points at the semi final and final or is it is a typo ? Hektor 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange coincidence but it is correct Satyricon uk 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Broadcasts?

Should this article contain the radio presenters of each country under the "Commentators" tab? i.e. in the UK, the contest was broadcast on BBC Radio 2 by Ken Bruce. Squawkbox 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2006&oldid=58663547"