![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have been informed that articles going over 30k are fine, and it is not a barrier to achieving Featured status. Please participate in the Peer Review (as linked at the top of this talk page) and let me know your suggestions. Ten heads are better than one.. so you might notice some obvious mistake or omission which passed me by! EuroSong talk 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Featured Articles have a certain number of guidelines. One such guideline is that mentioning relative time differences should be minimised. So for example, to talk about "next year's Contest" when referring to Eurovision 2007, makes it clear that the text was written in 2006. That means, this text will become out-of-date next year. The best articles should not do this: they should be static information, which will be true for as long as possible. It is even borderline, to mention such things as "As of 2006, the country who has entered the longest with no wins to their name is Portugal." - because who knows? Portugal might win next year*; rendering the article out-of-date. It is also not a good thing to mention the 2007 participants, Czech Republic and Georgia, as if they have actually made their debut. The 2007 Contest has not happened yet. This information is speculative and subject to change. In fact I seem to remember some news about the Czech Republic intending to enter one year recently - but then they changed their mind and decided not to. Such information should not be included in the article until the end of the three minutes of those debut countries' songs - because up until then, anything can happen which might mean their participation is cancelled! EuroSong talk 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
* Yeah, right
Okay, we got it Featured :)
Remaining points to consider, as of now, are:
Hopefully we can get this on the main page on the date of the 2007 Contest. EuroSong talk 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed this statement:
for two reasons:
If anyone can prove me wrong, feel free to add that back to the article and leave a note here. Thanks! -- Lewis R « т · c » 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This was an interesting and growing section. Is there merit in restoring this as a separate page?
This is one of the most noticeable and might I say, notorious aspects of eurovision. Why isnt there a mention of the effects of neighbor voting, ethnically related countries voting for each other (greece/cyprus, Romania/moldova), minority voting (albanians in macedonia/turks in germany/russians in the baltic states) and so on?
What about Gina G? Not a one hit wonder..her entry 'Ooh Ah Just A Little Bit' is possibly the biggest selling hit to come out of the contest ever [that needs to be checked of course, if it's not Gina it might be Abba but i think she is well up there as it was one of the very few true international hits, most eurovision winners are not, most dont sell outside their country of origin, it would be good to include here a chart regarding that]. As a direct result of the show the record went straight to number 1 in the UK where it was a platinum record selling millions around the world and culminating in a top 12 place on the US Billboard Hot 100 which is pretty well unheard of for acts from this contest, again, outside of Abba. Gina subsequently had at least 5 more chart hits and a even over a year later her debut album 'Fresh' shipped over 600000 copies worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.34.107 ( talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely forgot about that, I should've brought that out earlier, but this is actually fairly important - some good criteria need to be set for the inclusion in the list. I am not into the "golden record" or chart things, but I believe some sensible criteria can be established - and then all potential winners should be checked against that. That said, I would rather the criteria would automatically exclude winners from, say, 5 last years, because I believe only enduring success is worth recognition - many artists rode on a short wave of popularity of their ESC entry, but it quickly faded away. Bravada, talk - 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but Ruslana isn't famous! Why Helena is deleted?-- Chronisgr 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes she has more success than she had with Antique(that was the reason they split up). Helena is the only winner of the last years that made a hit in Europe after her victory in Eurovision. Actually Mambo seems to be more successful in Airplay Charts around Europe than My Number One.Also My Number One entered at 45 in Billboard Hot Dance Charts and the single will be released this Tuesday in the US. -- Chronisgr 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to establish some rules here FAST! People keep adding whoever to the list, it is now quite contradictory to what the article says, as it seems that almost EVERYBODY achieved great international success after their win! Bravada, talk - 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The maps need to be changed, especially the first one. There should be more countries in yellow (active members, e.g. Egypt), but they can't even be seen on the map, let alone coloured. Also the map contradicts with the article: Tunisia in the Eurovision Song Contest. While on the subject of images, instead of having a picture from Congratulations (as that wasn't actually a Eurovision Song Contest), why not have a picture of the logo being unveiled, such as the top right image on this page: [1]. Red v Blue 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This section has no relevance or interest to anyone outside the small coterie of fans attending the event, why is it taking up precious space in the article?
I think that you should use coded phrases in your competition. I mean that you can decide what every phrase must content something special. You can decide modulation, tact and other things - just to make sure that it was the right composer that composed and no one else. I also think that you should make other rules about "WINNING". I mean action on scen is something else than the song that is performed. Performing can also be divided into different tasks 1) singing 2) dancing 3) how the actors are dressed 4) What happens on stage? can you winn just by performing a show? 5) how the music is played instrumentally.
Eva Kristina Jonsson Tegelgatan 7 716 30 Fjugesta
Sweden —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.20.61.66 ( talk) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
The countries that have never entered Eurovision, although they could if they wanted to, are the Czech Republic and Georgia in Europe, Algeria and Tunisia in Africa, and Lebanon in the Middle East. Lebanon was already planning on entering in 2005 but withdrew. This list should be mentioned in the article somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The European Broadcast area includes Palestine ( unless I'm missing something ) but the accompanying map doesn't. Shouldn't it? Skopelos-Slim 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what about the Vatican? It's a sovereign country, innit? But is it a member of the EBU? JIP | Talk 07:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
First, i saw this article and thaught that "Well, There must be some standard infobox for this (type of) music event. When i searched around and found out that there weren't any "music event" infoboxes at all, i made a dedicated ESC infobox. I later changed the name of the infobox to Infobox song competition, and removed the EBU logo.
People should remember that the purpose of infoboxes is primarily to give a quick overview of the company/organisation/annual event ect. - And not necessarily "infobox exclusive" GDPs and numbers.
A single, frames low-res jpeg logo in the right of the main article of this vast project was a little odd introduction, I think.
Please accept and IMPROVE this the infobox because the annual music event of Eurosong is such a typical infobox-article. Ssolbergj 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I like this addition. The infobox could be used in many different song competition articles. Nice. -- Bob 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The infobox is ugly, unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I also dislike Ssolbergj's edit warring. EuroSong talk 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Eurovision Song Contest | |
---|---|
Current: Eurovision Song Contest 2008 | |
File:Non-free image removed.jpg | |
Website | http://www.eurovision.tv |
Hello, I think an infobox is needed and the {{ infobox television}} fields are not so useful. The most relevant comparisons are Academy Awards or FIFA World Cup. What I would really want is a convenient way to go to this years contest! Additionally, a song contest infobox should contain some fields like:
In any case, I think something like the hacky use of the {{ infobox award}} here is already very nice, but perhaps someone would find the time to do this properly? Thanks, Vesal ( talk) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Having just checked the EBU website at [2] it would seem that the Vatican City may be entitled to enter the contest as well. There is a Vatican Radio station, although I'm not sure if they would need to have a TV station as well in order to enter. The current pontiff does have a better singing voice than his predecessor, although having a conclave of cardinals to decide their votes might not be allowable under the current rules. Moldovanmickey 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)MoldovanMickey Preceding comment repaired Peteb16 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
After 2002, Turkey's winning in the contest, festival's face has been changed.. New logo, new system, televote compulsory.. And the festival became popular as like as in the first years.
Anyway.. There arent any writing about Turkey..
Even when someone tries to add eurovision-turkey.com which announces turkish and english eurovision news.. it is deleted..
It will be good to add eurovision-turkey.com and Sertab Erener
~~ Maverick16
Please be realistic what you are talking about.. If you tell me that you dont want to allow Eurovision Turkey just for it is the site of Turkey i will stop this discussion here and i wont continue to argue.. But be sure that oikotimes and esckazakhistan are also national fan sites..-- Maverick16 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As a totally objective non-European Wikipedian who had never heard of Eurovision previous to stumbling upon this article today, I have to support (for what it's worth) Eurosong in his stance. He/she has explained his/her reasoning and rationale quite well concerning the topics raised by Maverick16. There is clearly no 'anti' anything in the responses, no hidden agenda and a perfect example of NPOV. In fact, I think the whole article is quite a good example of a multi-national / multi-cultural article being presented fairly to all and partial to none. Well done! CanadianMist 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that somebody is having the time of his life by spreading farcical information on several Eurovision winners. As I am French and try to get information for the French Wikipedia Eurovision winners section, I am a bit annoyed. At first, I noticed the joke on the Linda Martin link where she is described as "heavily botoxed", at first I was hugely amused (although I have no idea how she looks) but thought administrators were seeing to that because in the discussion page, there was a reminder of how they wanted the article. Then it started to occur to me that while creating some links for the French pages, I had discarded information that sounded strange or out of place and yesterday I realized that there is somebody having fun. I think all winners links should be looked at by administrators especially Linda Martin, Bobbysocks and the clairvoyant story, Udo Jürgens described as a womanizer (perhaps it's true but on a Wikipedia page, it does not sound serious) and his "family links", Massiel's birthdate and place and strange "political" biography, I don't think the Spanish link mentions it and perhaps Teddy Scholten or I can't remember who is supposed to have a hit by "recording instrumental versions of The Shadows' hit. Consequently, I'm not sure I can rely on the English version to create links for the French version. Something like "heavily botoxed" has no consequence because you know immediately it's a joke but more troublesome are other information that do not sound farcical and might be repeated and translated on other links out of good faith.
Kindest regards,
P.R —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.79.228.47 ( talk) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
All Kinds Of Everything, Brotherhood Of Man and Save Your Kisses For Me should be changed to All Kinds of Everything, Brotherhood of Man and Save Your Kisses for Me respectively as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. Jogers ( talk) 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me who thinks that the country sub-sections should use the same style as each other? By this I mean compare Greece to Romania. The tables are different for a start and the Romanian page uses colour to show the highest result the country has ever recieved (surely colours should only be use on table for a first place entry, as on Greece's page?). Also, look underneath the external links on the Romania page, a small table linking to all pages for Romanian entries year by year. This would be a great feature on the sub-sections but I haven't seen it on any other pages. The main table on Belgium's page has a lot more information that other pages: who the composer was for each of the songs, the conductor etc. Why not on every page? I'll help with changing them as much as I can, but being a newbie to Wikipedia, I don't know how use all the tables, "safely" edit them, etc. I'd appeciate thoughts on this matter and any help! -- Gottago 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Should this start "From 1957 to 1962..."? Also the cited source (the 2005 rules) doesn't mention anything about numbers in previous years. Thryduulf 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
the article makes references to the many genres that have been seen in the past. maybe beside the genre's there could be a significant example or two. just for clarification. because i read nordic music, and i had a hard time finding a specific band/song. ...Patrick ( talk, cntrb.) 04:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Several images in this article don't have a proper fair use rationale. The license of one other image is disputed. – Ilse @ 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I also removed the last fair use image without rationale from the portal link. – Ilse @ 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The categories Eurovision Song Contest by year and Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest shouldn't be included by the use of the protected navigational templates used at the bottom of the article. – Ilse @ 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Archived FAR at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Eurovision_Song_Contest/archive1; pls see instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed three images which had been tagged for deletion. This was mainly motivated by the increased visibility of the article because it's on the main page, not because I necessarily think they should be deleted. If you would like to comment on those deletions, just get the link from the diff. It's seems like there are plenty of images for this article in the meantime. If you think that one of those images will obviously be kept and can provide better licencing info, feel free to re-add it. Savidan 16:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Whats the theme music called? Peace keeper II 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, but was this article selected as the AOTD for today in order to coincide with the contest in current events? · AndonicO Talk 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am new here, but I saw that there is a spin off festival missing onth main page, which is the European contest for minority languages. More on: http://www.liet.nl/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liet-Lavlut Hope it is useful. So the question is whether you would like to add it on the main page.
Interestingly, Serbia is only the second country in the entire history of the contest to win with its debut entry. The first was Switzerland, in the 1956 contest. But then, that's a given - it was the first contest, so any country would have won with its debut entry. JIP | Talk 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Wogan commentary? He has done the commentary for as long as I can remember, and, for Brits at least, is a HUGE part of the Eurovision contest.
Considering that Britain as a nation have stopped taking the Eurovision seriously in recent years, Wogan's sarcastic, often drink-induced commentary is a real treat for those who watch it with irony. Indeed, it is hard not to, nowadays, seeing how seriously other countries take this silly little talent contest. If it wasn't for Terry Wogan, many people, including myself, would not watch it.
Then why, in the Eurovision page, is there no mention of him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.112.137 ( talk) 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
But Terry himself often comments that drink is the only way he can get through it. And what is the problem with adding other people? If we add Tezzah, other countries can add others if they see fit. Also, on not taking it seriously, have you not seen the presenters they have each year? They act as if it's the biggest thing in the world.
If that's all other countries commentator's can come up with then its really rather tame. Wogan is biting and in many ways actually nasty about the other entries, not simply trying to be a little bit funny. As said, its the only reason most British people watch.
-
Finally someone who agrees with me. Tell me, anti-Wogans, do any other countries have a commentator who has been doing it since 1980 and that people see as an important part of Eurovision. To Brits, Terry Wogan=Eurovision and Eurovision=Terry Wogan
Why do you have to? This IS the English Wikipedia page for it. You wouldn't have a section about a French translation for Monty Python and the Holy Grail on the Monty Python page. Also, as pointed out, the other countries don't have, as far as I know, a commentator as symbollic of Eurovision as Terry Wogan.
Why can't we just add Wogan in, and if it means so much to anyone to add their own commentator in, then let them? If no-one cares enough to change it, then I don't see the problem. And my question still stands, which you have never answered: have any of the other countries had a commentator who did it as much as Wogan?
Hahhahaha and why don't we list all the other 41 commentators from other countries?? Why is this Terry Wogan so important, because he's ignorant and has no respect for something that to others mean more?
How on earth is Wogan ignorant? He knows more about Eurovision than anyone else in the country. Would you rather some boring commentator who took the silly little contest seriously? And yes, my question is relevant. If he's the commentator who's been doing it for the longest time, then this has to count for something.
Yes it does belong here. You have continued to ignore my points simply so you can get your way. Something tells me you would thrive under a fascist government. So I shall repeat: "If he's the commentator who's been doing it for the longest time, then this has to count for something." And yes, that is internationally. If you can prove me wrong, then do so.
Hey hey kids! I'm back! I just noticed this on the Terry Wogan Wiki page: "Many European countries broadcast the BBC's coverage of the event rather than going to the expense of covering it themselves." So... whadayasaynow? - person who has been asked to sign his comments
If "many European countries broadcast the BBC's coverage of the event rather than going to the expense of covering it themselves", then wouldn't that make Wogan an international commentator... or something... - Mr. Sign
My agenda? What a bizarre question... I am simply one of the millions of people who watch Eurovision solely for Wogan's commentary, and feel that he is not being given enough credit. I could equally ask what your agenda is. Have you been scarred by a traumatic childhood experience with Terry Wogan which causes you to hunt him down ruthlessly, putting him down every step? It sounds bizarre, I'm sure, but as did your question.
Godsake! Why can't you just content yourself with writting sbout that Wogan on the article about the UK in the eurovision song contest? You do know there is a page like that, don't you? Plus, the UK isn't the only english-speaking country in the world, and most non-britons (with very, very few exceptions) don´t know who wogan is. I myself only heard about him when I moved to the uk!! I love my country's commentator, but it isn't because of that that I'm gonna write about him. Write about wogan on the page about the Uk on the eurovision song contest!!
User:Slydevil has removed a paragraph in the article's lead - see diff. I disagree with this removal. The reason given was "it makes some very strong claims without any sort of references, it's informal, doesn't do the rest of the article justice". My response is:
This paragraph was present when the article passed Featured Article status, and no-one said there was anything wrong with it. Regarding references, not every single sentence needs a citation - and the rest of the article speaks for the truth of the paragraph. I would say that the fact that it's one of the most watched non-sporting events in the world (a referenced statement), and the list of participants, quite nicely back up the fact that it's currently a contest of "mammoth proportions" - and the section on national selections shows just what a household name it is.
Does anyone have anything to add to this, before I re-include it? I will wait to leave time for comments. Thanks. EuroSong talk 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If the deleted paragraph served as an adequate summary of the article, it should be restored. It doesn't need references as long as the points mentioned in the lead are referenced later in the article. = Axlq 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What facts is this: "the word "Eurovision" is one of the few household names to be recognised across an entire continent." exactly summarising? It's an assumption, not encyclopedic matierial. The paragraph merely sensationalises whats already been stated in the previous paragraphs. It doesn't contribute anything useful, at all. Slydevil 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The (most recent) map was deleted, because it was unreferenced (and looked like someone just made it up). Whichever referenced (not original research) map eventually is put up, hopefully it also makes a distinction between the "two-way" (and multi-way) alliances (incl., e.g., Cyprus<->Greece, Belarus<->Russia, Romania<->Moldova, to name the most "obvious" ones), and the "one-way" alliances, (e.g., Germany->Turkey, Estonia->Russia, i.e., cases where a large immigrant community regularly vote for their country of historical origin, from where there is no significant regular "voting in return"). -- Klamber 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The entire ESC has to be broadcast live in national TVs and viewers vote in the same 15 minutes, I know. But in Armenia the broadcast begins at 00:00am and ends at 03:00am (or 01:00 to 04:00?). So, is there the Eurovision Song Contest so popular? If yes, how can it be so popular? I think this issue is very interesting. User:Skafa/Sign 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Eurovision related wiki site has launched. you can connect on this site at www.eurovision-wiki.com
Can we add it on external links section?-- 88.226.57.215 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the map on "Voting Alliances". The image was removed by User:Klamber, with a edit summary "deleting unreferenced and geographically inaccurate map (e.g., why are Estonian islands different than mainland?". The user has now been blocked, suspected of being a sockpuppet, -- Petri Krohn 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
They're members of the EBU, aren't they eligible? Shouldn't they be shown as so on the map?
I made one, a half year ago: you can see Egypt, Jordan, Libya... but not Azebaijan. But I can make a new one.-- 82.212.57.246 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Are English lyrics (from non English speaking countries) common for songs that do well? If so that should be included in this sentence. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the idea of some über-smart who divided languages of former Yugoslav entries into current divisions, by what I must presume is a geographic criterion. There were no "Croatian", "Bosnian" and "Serbian" languages before 1990. I really believe that we must stick to the official language of the songs here, and of course during ex-Yu there was only the common language (Serbo-Croatian, with a couple of songs in Slovene language, which was a separate story all the time). Otherwise we are engaging in original research. Just because somebody was from republic X does not mean they sang in X-ian language. Going into analyzing the words of the songs to figure our whether they were "really X-ian", "actually Y-ian", or whatever (which - mind you - some people actually do), is a road straight into WP:OR. Once again I believe we must revert all of these to their original official language, Serbo-Croatian, and stick to this. Could somebody else perhaps comment before I make large-scale corrections (this must be done for basically every year 1961-1992). -- Dzordzm ( talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been confirmed by the EBU and at esctoday.com that Azerbaijan and San Marino are to participate in the 2008 contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbonjela ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the note contained within the page source. For convenience I shall copy it here:
Note: Do NOT add Azerbaijan or San Marino until they have actually participated in the Contest.
Even though they may be officially-confirmed participants, we can NOT say that they have actually "made their debut" until they have performed on the stage on the night of the Contest. This is a list of actual debut entries: not just "intentions to participate". It has happened before that a country has confirmed its intention to participate - and gone so far as to select a song(!) - but then withdrawn at the last moment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (read the rules), and we can not predict the future. These countries should only be added to the list after they have performed live on stage on the night of the Contest.
Please take note. EuroSong talk 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K. - Citius Altius Fortius ( talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the prize for best song was awarded to the composer and not the artist performing. Am I right? I think this issue needs to be addressed in the article.-- 24.85.68.231 ( talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted an addition to the article which suggested that 97% of the Contest's funding comes from the Big Four, and 60% from the BBC alone. This is clearly untrue; certainly searching has brought no evidence whatsoever. Chwech 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The EBU has confirmed that Scotland could submit an entry separate from the rest of the UK. Whether this means that the UK could in future be represented by the 4 home nations remains to be seen, but I have added the issue of Scotland's possible participation to the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense intended, but this map is quite bad and violated WP:OR as far as I can see. To begin with, Azerbaijan is entering this year and is still coloured yellow, so that would mean that the map is in fact from last year. By that time Kosovo wasn't a country and certainly not able to join, nor would it be this year so the yellow is just wrong. As San Marino is entering this year, it should at least be coloured yellow. All in all, the map is a mess and detracts from the quality of the article instead of adding to it. That's the reason I'm removing it. JdeJ ( talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In this section i have provided a Youtube clip, which is officially provided by the BBC on the BBC's official Youtube channel whereby 2007 UK entrants Scooch blame political voting for poor performanc at Eurovision.
Someone removed this so i edited it and retyped it.
Would appreciate someone tidying it up a bit (i am not paid to do this). However I feel documented evidence from a reliable source (the BBC's official Youtube channel) is relevant to this.
This is because while often those not affected may blame politics here is eveidence of a PARTICIPANT blaming it.
As this is on the BBC's official Youtube channel it is not a copyright violation and is online verifiable from a reliable source (the BBC's official Youtube channel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
in my inbox it says: The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpFZB9hecuU) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to.
The link I provided on Youtube is for the BBC's official channel. It is NOT an irrelevant link. The BBC is the UK state television broadcaster. The clip was on the BBC's official Youtube channel. The BBC made the clip available on Youtube. I feel therefore there is a problem with wikipedia itself.
I feel my contributions (chulcoop) were releveant and would like a WikiExpert to look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.211.196 ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This refers to The version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&oldid=204120654
I did not believe that the "references" need to Online Verifiable.
As far as i understood the references could be for any medium. The evidence is available on Youtube but i am not allowed to do that for wiki.
Surely, for example, the actual broadcasts and any recordings of this are reference themselves.
Printed articles can be refereneced on wiki even if not online verifiable.
Anyway as further backup here is the 2008 entries from the official eurovision site as backup:
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/participants-2008
The videos are contained on there
Video clips for most of 2007 as backup can be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/eurovision/2007/contestants/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.211.196 ( talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The most important result of a contest is the winner. Who are they ? Nobody knows them, at least nobody from the team who wrote this article. In such an article a complete list of all winners and the votes they received would be mandatory.
Instead, I can see absolutely irrelevant results from an obscure TV show from Germany (probably the authors are Germans) showing votes from a small fraction of Europe's population, and nothing about the true winners.
My suggestion is just to delete this garbage. Can anybody write a serious article about the Eurovision Song Contest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that following my intervention, at least a link to the winners was added to the article. As about the article, I don't think it contains "high level of information". I would say it contains "lots of data" if you can see the difference. Like is that TV show from Germany, supposed by the authors to reflect the opinions of the whole Europe. Really ?
Another worthless information is the divagation about political voting. When voting, people consider many criterias some related to music, some not. It's everybody's right to vote as they wish. Its pointless WHY they vote in a certain way, what is important WHO they vote. Because recently the number of the countries expanded seriously, an alliance between several countries is too little in the global math. It simply doesn't matter. Such alliances cannot have a serious impact, they cannot push a worthless contestant to win if the other countries vote for somebody else.
By the way, the map of the political voting present here in the discussion page is a nonsense. The person who made it shows a total lack of knowledge of the history.
Hungary was once a big empire, now it's shrinked to a small country. All of their neghbours took away territories from them. Because of that reason they don't like any of them excepting Austria.
The republics of the former Yugoslavia, a few years ago killed each others going as far as ethnic cleansing. In the opinion of the author of the map, now they are in love with each other.
Romania and Bulgaria do not love each other, last "warm" relation between the two countries was the Romanian military invasion of the Cadrilater at the begining of the 20-th century. (Bulgaria attacked Yugoslavia. Romania answered by attacking Bugaria because of a military aliance between Romania and Yugoslavia. The unexpected attack from Romania forced Bulgaria to ask for peace. More realistic would be an alliance between Romania and Serbia, but no such thing is displayed on the map.)
I suppose the grey colored parts of the map (the west side of the map) are the "honest" countries, among them, obviously is Germany. How about the votes casted for Turkey due to the large Turkish origin population in Germany ? (Admit it, the authors are Germans.) And how about the French speaking countries ?
Just to mention a few issues... there are much more. But as I said earlier, political voting is irrelevant and without any serious impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And another issue. Who is the best of all times? That's a nonsense, you cannot compare an artist from the sixties to one from 2007. There were different genres. The taste of the voters changed in time, the music evolved. You ask peolple having the musical tastes of the 2007 to vote for somebody from 1960. Obviously they will not appreciate it. Another point is that people tend to like the music they know. Nowadays you can listen on the radio/TV the winners from the latest years. They are the only known by most of the public so they will receive the most votes.
But if you want to talk about the best I would say you cannot skip Gigliola Cinquetti the winner from 1964. She got 49 points, the second placed got 17. That's about one third of the winner's points. Nobody ever won the contest with such a crushing difference. What's her problem? She's not German ? But you mention the German Nicole several times. I don't deny she deserved to win but there's nothing outstanding about her among the other winners.
BTW, the winners' page it's just a plain list, nothing about the other contestants, nothing about who voted for who and how many points they received from each country. I can recall, I saw one or two years ago on Wikipedia a fully documented article about that, but the authors of this article simply removed it. First, they destroyed valuable information. Second, they showed a blatant disrespect for the work of other people. What if next year your article will be removed as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Briefly, my point is that you should focus the article on the song contest. You talk about everything but the contest itself. Well, there's a little exageration, there is valuable info in the article, but you miss the essential: the contest itself. The complete list of the contestants, what voting system was, how many points received every contestant, who gave those points to who, what was the song's title, who composed it.
Let's say that I consider your info about political voting interresting and I want to see who voted for who. Can I ?
Let's say I'm from a country from where no contestant ever won. In this case I'm primarily interrested to see not the winners but the results of the other contestants. Can I ?
But even if I'm not from such a country I still want to see all the results. I know the work of many musicians and I want to see how they were appreciated, regardless if they won or not.
Indeed the article is very long, but that's because of too much irrelevant info. Remove it and talk about the contest itself not TV shows broadcasted in only one European country.
Sorry, maybe I'm a little too harsh, but I'm frustrated knowing there was an article containing all kinds of info I was interrested in it and now it's gone. I came to find some info I knew it was here but I was forced to leave without. Should I be pleased ?
I think at this time the world's most important source for encyclopedic information is this site. I do not intend to beg you to do a good job. You MUST do it. It's an OBLIGATION, not a privilege. Millions, maybe billions of people watch you. Respect them and respect yourself. I never tried to edit the page, because I'm aware I cannot do a world class level work. If you can, then do it. If you can't, follow my example and let others.
Does anybody know if or when Kosovo is entering the eurovision song contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamml13 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a Serbian television company? They must have an EU membership Adamml13 ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an anonymous editor who is making a good-faith edit, trying to change "Ireland" into "Republic of Ireland" - stating that this has to be the case to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. I am replying to him/her here, since s/he is an anonymous editor and therefore has no reliable user talk page. Please take note that it is not necessary to use the full name of the country unless there is actually clear confusion. No-one is going to read about Ireland having won the Contest 7 times, and assume that it is Northern Ireland! It would not make sense anyhow: Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and we would not talk about it having won the Contest on its own - even if all the British winners had been from NI! Also, no-one refers to NI as just "Ireland". If people want to talk about NI, they always include the "Northern" prefix.
We also talk about The United Kingdom in the article: but did you know that there also used to be a United Kingdom of the Netherlands? However, we don't have to use the full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (for that is its official name), because there is a convention on Wikipedia which states that common names should be used unless there is a good reason not to. "Ireland" is the country's common name. Besides, in the Eurovision Song Contest itself, the country is known as "Ireland". The EBU call it as such. And to the best of my knowledge, not one single member of any Irish delegation has ever complained, petitioning the EBU to put the words "Republic Of" onto the scoreboard beside their country's name. So - thank you for your good-faith edits, but I hope that you can see that it is not necessary to change the name of the country. EuroSong talk 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In the key it states that purple is used for countries that intended to enter but later withdrew. Currently Lebanon is the only country in this colour but surely Tunisia should be in purple as well since it says on their page that they were supposed to take part in the 1977 contest and were even drawn to take part in slot number 4 but later withdrew due to unknown reasons. I would change the map if I could but I wouldn't know where to begin! -- gottago ( talk) 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any regulations about using profanity and obscene language in ESC ? Obviously not, because 2008 Estonian entry "Leto svet" used Finnish obscene word pano (sexual intercourse) on stage. Was that the first time a four letter word was used on Eurovision ? Warbola ( talk) 12:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is not Kosovo a part of Serbia in one of the maps? By this standard you should not have Baskia as a part of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.212.10 ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Would people please stop adding the winners table to this article. There is an entirely separate article which lists all the winners. It is not necessary to give ALL the winners in this main article. As per the Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia is not just a random collection of information. This article is structured properly, and flows well. We may as well have a complete list of all entries, and all the voting in the history of the Contest! No... there are separate articles for all the little details. The main article is not the right place for this table. If anyone disagrees then they are welcome to reply here with their reasons - but please stop edit-warring over the matter. EuroSong talk 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have re-added the radio comment in the ORIGIN section with a link from the official Eurovision site to back up the sentence. ChanelleHayes ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting piece of information, and am glad you think so too. I have just noticed the article is now semi-protected, so could someone please re-add this segment to the ORIGIN section please? With the right format, seems I did it wrong before, sorry. Here is the text...
"The 1956 Eurovision Song Contest was primarily a radio show, although some cameras were taping the contest for the few Europeans who had a television set at that time."
And this is the link... http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=273
Many thanks. ChanelleHayes ( talk) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Terry Wogan made some interesting comments at the end of tonight's contest - he said that the UK and Western Europe should think about whether or not they want to bother competing anymore, because the perceived political voting had got so bad. I added it and tagged it "citation needed" - I'll try to add one when it makes it's way into something I can cite (technically it might count as original resource until then...?). Señor Service ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional - I think someone is taking it out again. It's relevant stuff, and for people in the UK, Terry Wogan is *the* voice of Eurovision - so it's noteworthy too. Think it should go back in.
"Most recently, during UK coverage of the 2008 competition, Terry Wogan commented on the tendency of former Soviet Republics to vote for one another, and even suggested that the UK and Western Europe should consider whether it was worth competing anymore. citation needed" Señor Service ( talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not UK's Terry Wogan alone who critizises these voting pattern. Long year German TV announcer Peter Urban does the same, referring to "Balcan Connection" and "Eastern Block Connection". So it is not a UK aspect to the contest, but a generell aspect that should be in the article. The turkish song will get 10 or 12 points from Germany even if their singer leaves the stage in a hurry to take a piss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It should certainly be added as soon as possible. Wogan sounded extremely disillusioned at the end of tonight's contest, and given how his views tend to pretty much hit the nail on the head for the rest of the UK with regards to Eurovision, it certainly raises some interesting points over Britain's future with the contest, certainly. The Times recently had an interesting article about the politicised voting as well, if I can find it again. I'd say that most British people are certainly getting rather cynical about the contest, and on a rather unencyclopaedic note I'd be very surprised if the UK is still competing (or at least bankrolling the thing) in about two or three years' time. 82.19.11.242 ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Luxemburg, Italy and in 2008 also Austria do not participate to this because of political voting. The Swiss newspapers also want their country not to take part in this scam anymore. Won't be long before either Germany - their "Terry Wogan" does lots of criticism during the voting broadcast too - or UK will quit. If Balcans and Russians want their song contest, they should fund it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.116.129 ( talk) 07:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have just made a large re-organisation of this section, integrating some of the comments above, and hoping that the result is consensual. There remains intense activity on the page... with reverts to early versions of the section or the whole article, given last night's event. cckkab ( talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
wuu:欧罗维竞唱歌比赛 it is the 4th Asian language page. Thx !!
Lulu was famous before being in this competition (if her first entry was in 1969 when she joint-won.) I would have deleted her from the list of people who came to attention in Eurovision but it's looked for anons. -- 81.178.96.15 ( talk) 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we expand on the funding situation (especially "the big four") on actual costs involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.101.190 ( talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we mention that there was some controversy about Cliff Richard losing out on winning because of the alleged bribing of the judges by Spain's Franco in 1968? As mentioned here: http://www.nme.com/news/cliff-richard/36423 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.93.184 ( talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
From 1957 to 1970, only soloists and duos were allowed on stage. From 1963, a chorus of up to three people was permitted.
These two statements directly contradict each other. What are the correct dates? OrangeDog ( talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
To the people trying to dispute this: In 1992, the country which participated in the Eurovision Song Contest was called Yugoslavia, and it entered under this flag:
Yugoslavia. The song "Ljubim Te Pesmama" was included in the list of performances of Yugoslavia. In the year 2000, no-one talking about the ESC ever stated that S&M debuted in 1992! It is only now in recent times, since Serbia & Montenegro have taken part (since 2004), that nitpickers have tried to say this.
Read the Wikipedia entries on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. The former states that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro, existed from 1992 to 2003. The latter states that Serbia and Montenegro was a union of Serbia and Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006.
Therefore, it can be clearly seen that as political entities, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed from 1992-2003 and Serbia and Montenegro existed from 2003-2006. There is no justification for claiming that the Eurovision entry in 1992 was entered under the flag of S&M. It wasn't. S&M didn't exist as a political entity under that name in 1992.
If someone really, really wants to be pedantic then they could remove the 1992 Yugoslavian entry from the list of other entries from Yugoslavia, since it was technically a new political entity between 1991 and 1992. However, this is already addressed in the article, which does state in footnote b: "The entries presented as being from "Yugoslavia" represented the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except for the 1992 entry, which represented the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." EuroSong talk 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The main article says that Serbia and Montenegro debuted in 2004, but the countries page says that they debuted in 1992. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.175.67 ( talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed two of the names from the winners section - Lulu and Carola, since they'd both achieved success long before their wins (it seems in fact that they both had more success BEFORE their wins). While I was at it I added a photo (Bucks Fizz performing at Eurovision) as I felt the article needed a picture of an actual artist performing at the contest, and since it's generally considered that this particular act won more on appearance than performance it seemed the most appropriate (although perhaps Lordi might qualify for that as well). -- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now twice reverted the addition of irrelevant information near the top of the article. One editor is adding the fact that the 2004 Contest was held in Istanbul. While this fact is undoubtedly true, it is not necessary to mention it in the place in question. It is a caption to the image of the Eurovision logo, which currently states that the logo has been in use since 2004. There mere fact that this was the first year has no particular relevance to the fact that that Contest was held in Turkey: it's not as if the logo was designed by a Turkish person, with a particular Turkish motif. Therefore it is superfluous to add the location of that Contest in the image caption. Indeed, the IP in question who reverted originates in Turkey - and one must question his or her motive. Does s/he really seek to improve the quality of this Wikipedia article, or does s/he merely have an agenda to promote Turkey? I leave this comment here on the talk page in case the editor wishes to enter into discussion (as opposed to edit-warring). EuroSong talk 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that from 1978 to 1999 the songs had to be sung in one of the country`s official languages. However, in 1983 Finland presented a song called La Dolce Vita, in which parts (every part where the singer sung La Dolce Vita) were song in spanish/Italian. Would`t this have broken the rules? ABC101090 ( talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If Iraq is part of the European Broadcasting Area, shouldn't it then be eligible to participate in the contest? The current map does not include Iraq, so I think there may be some caveat I am missing. Chedorlaomer ( talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I put this in the discussion about the rules page, when I meant that the 2009 rules contradict information in THIS article.
The 2009 rules ( http://eurovision.tv/upload/esc2009rules.pdf) say:
"1) Should there be a tie for the last position in a Semi-Final (because two songs have received the same number of points on the basis of the televoting results) or for the first place in the Grand Final, as well as any other situation where a tie occurs, the winner shall be the song which has obtained points from the highest number of countries. If the tying songs have received points from the same number of countries, the highest number of 12-point scores shall be decisive. If the winner still cannot be determined by this procedure, the number of times ten points have been awarded shall be the deciding factor. If necessary, this method shall continue until account has been taken of the number of times one point has been awarded.
In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the Semi-Final in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties."
This clearly breaks ALL ties (there was always a debate about ranking countries as "=n" when tied for a place other than first or tenth or whenever it mattered).
This says (contrary to the article) that after exhausting the tiebreakers (very unlikely, of course) among two (or more) songs tied for first place, the song performed earlier will be declared the winner. This actually does come into play for ties near the bottom of the rankings where two countries can have an identical set of votes.
121.90.247.186 ( talk) 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we're rapidly running up against the three revert limit here (if not having passed it), so lets discuss it. Looking at one version of the change introduced:
nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting, with the introduction of so many ex-Soviet nations into the EU, been achieved.
[e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&diff=278111910&oldid=278108517]
My objections to this are multiple:
i) While jury voting has been introduced to remove the influence of blocks, to say that it is not a 'conclusive solution' is to pre-suppose what will happen at the next contest. It is possible that it *will* be a 'conclusive solution', and it is not our place to judge yet what will happen ahead of time.
ii) Blocks other than the former Soviet countries have been noted - notable a 'Nordic' block of Sweeden, Denmark, Finland, etc. and a former Yugoslav block. To highlight the former Soviet block are especially notable is prejudicial towards the people of those nations.
iii) You keep saying the 'EU' - the EU is the European Union, while the contest is organised by the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), an independent institution. Membership of the EU and EBU are entirely separate. The expansion of the EU in 2004/2007 didn't have a notable affect on the contest... in fact since 2007 no EU nation has won the contest [Serbia and Russia].
iv) We already mention the existence of block and that juries are an attempt to counter them. You are restating information which is elsewhere in the article.
v) Adding 'and controversy' to the section title doesn't actually add any information, or clarify anything.
Please discuss any comment here before adding this information into the article again.
-- Neil ( talk) 08:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting [1] [2] [3] been achieved.
Above is the included information, the selection you quoted is incorrect. The way this info is being targeted for removal is very suspect. Reasons for the Eastern Bloc's (perceived) effect on the Eurovision Song Contest (and the reactions it provoked in the rest of Europe) are clearly sourced. It's the principal reason behind the re-introduction of an 'expert jury'! Anything else is obfuscation and I think editors desperate to remove this information need to give real reasons why they think that is acceptable.
i) Nothing is being presupposed. Read the sources.
ii) No 'Nordic' block has been the source of such sheer contention. However if you'd like to include sourced information about it, go ahead.
iii) I said it once and removed it entirely. View the edits.
iv) The 'mention' is nowhere so specific or accurate throughout the article; in fact it prefers to gloss facts rather than state them.
v) The words are not synonymous.
I hope these issues can be resolved, I can appreciate this may be a 'pet' article for some of you, but the inclusion of more accurate and unbiased information should be a priority. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! ( talk) 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Use the source:
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1363
"In Belgrade, we saw a difference in judgment of the public and the back-up juries, and we believe a combination will make the show more interesting," said Svante Stockselius, Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the EBU.
Very clearly, the win by Russia last year was egregious enough (in terms of discrepancy between the public vote and the jury vote) to lead to the reintroduction of juries. In the past, Mr. Stockselius has frequently emphasized the agreement with regards to the winner between the televoters and the jury.
121.90.247.186 ( talk) 13:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[4] BananaNoodle ( talk) 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
'The most points ever done by a competitior is bya norwegian. Alexander Rybak i 2009, Moscwa. '
I'm not even too sure what this was supposed to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that historically majority of the successes were MOR pop is true, but I don't think that it is true that Lordi were the first success of the deviating formula. Actually, the musical direction of the festival began to change soon after the withdrawal of the orchestra (oh, how I regret them doing that ...). Actually, the right after that a period of new countries winning the ESC with predominantly dance- and ethno-pop has begun (and still not ended). So, to be specific, I think that the winners like Padar&Benton, Sertab, Ruslana or Helena Paparizou were actually pretty far from the "middle of the road". 195.250.209.136 ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
--- I was not referring specifically to the music style, but let me say the the most used style is pop, and as everyone knows, pop has roots in America and not in Europe, and the contest is strictly European (I suppose). Despite this simple fact the omnipresence of the English language in the festival is perverting the national languages, as I said 19 of the 25 participants sung in English, which obviously doesn't represent the country culture, and language is a prominent cultural factor. And let me tell you that I have nothing against English language; in Moscow the best song in my opinion was sung by Jade from UK. But each country should be obliged to use their one language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.234.32 ( talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"In addition, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom control territories under their sovereignty outside of Europe. The Kingdom of Denmark, of which Denmark is the hegemonial part, includes Greenland in North America."
The only one I think you could mean would be Cyprus but this wouldn't be right.
Thanks, Sophia —Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaSpl ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Liechtenstein is part of the Council of Europe.[1]
It is not part of the Europan Broadcasting Union (See:
Talk: Eurovision Song Contest#Iraq?):
"Active members are those whose states fall within the European Broadcasting Area, or otherwise those who are members of the Council of Europe."
So there (is a/are) (country/countries) within the Council or Europe and Broadcasting Area, but not within the European Broadcasting Union.
The rest of what I have to say concerns the article of the European Broadcasting Union, so I'll talk there.
Also, Tobsonhelsinki stated on
Talk: European Broadcasting Union#Liechtenstein in Eurovision:
"It is true that Liechtenstein tried to enter the Eurovision Song Contest once,... it was in 1976..."[2]
Should Liechtenstein be included in this article?
Liechtenstein is eligable to participate as of 15 August 2008[3], but has not participated in the Eurovision contest yet. (See:
European Broadcasting Union#Potential active EBU members)
Should this be included in the map if it is included in the article?
[5] The Council of Europe
[6] Eurovision History
[7] 1FLTV
× Prince Naveeen 1000: Unless you beg for more ;) × 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Already commented on WP:Eurovision, but I've requested this article is given semi-protection, in light of recent vandalism. YeshuaDavid ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
[8] = Citation is needed here, otherwise this is a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt ( talk) 09:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
To whoever keeps removing the information about Italy being part of a big 5, if the decide to return to the Eurovision, please STOP! It was previously agreed that it should be included in the section - considering the information also came with 100% reliable sourcing. Mr Stockselius exclusively told reported that Italy IS part of a BIG 5 if they should return. I very much doubt the Executive Supervisor of the contest would make up such a thing - even to reporters at an OGAE meeting. ( Pr3st0n ( talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
Pr3st0n has asked me to provide a third opinion here, I will do so tomorrow morning (UTC). Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the issue and my third opinion is as follows: I think a brief mention of Italy being part of a potential Big Five is relevant to that section, as it is directly linked to the Big Four. The sourcing seems fine, though try and use {{ cite web}} and other such templates as it will help this page remain featured. Wikipedia does allow speculative content, though per WP:CRYSTALBALL it has to be sourced. More detail on Italy should however be placed in its main article i.e. Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. I would recommend that the current section title remain as it is, as 'Big Four/Five' is rather awkward, and the section is still primarily about the Big Four. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is amusing to note that the EBU website contains text which has been directly lifted out of this article :) EuroSong talk 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find a reference to this, and it has been added into the 1963 Eurovision Song Contest article as well. This seems somewhat at odds with the EBU rules. Am I missing something? AlexandrDmitri ( talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
One editor has recently been trying to add a sentence to this article which speaks of the Czech Republic withdrawing from the Contest. It is accompanied by a reference from the BBC news website.
While this news may be of interest to Eurovision fans, it does not belong in this encyclopædia article - especially not as a disjointed statement in the article's lead section! I am leaving this comment here on the talk page for two reasons: firstly, because the editor in question (an anonymous IP) has now attempted to add the sentence twice, and I do not want to get into an edit war: I am therefore writing an explanation here on the talk page, as is proper. Secondly, as a general guideline for future new editors - please bear in mind that this is an encyclopædia article, not a news page for all the latest Eurovision snippets. Think of this article in a permanent state, in a paper encyclopædia. Think of it being read by someone who has never even heard of the Eurovision Song Contest before, and for whom reading this article is their first introduction to what the Contest even is.
With that in mind, I hope it is clear that - while a broad overview and history of the Contest is suitable for this article, the latest year-by-year news is not appropriate. EuroSong talk 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently added some information regarding the omnipresence of the English language in the ESC, I don't want to enter into a edit war, so I wont add it again. But I must say I added on the topic which concerns Criticism and Controversy. I supplied reliable sources stating that many scholars mainly in southern Europe argue that the omnipresence of the English language is depreciating European musical culture. I suppose the paragraph regarding this topic was written on an impartial way, I supplied sources and I added on a topic regarding controversy, I would like to know where is the partiality of this paragraph and why it is not acceptable in one encyclopaedia: "The Eurovision Song Contest shows also a evident submission of European culture to American musical influences due to various songs sung in English and the obvious and patent style of pop music which is commonly broadcasted in America and throughout the world; on the final in Moscow in 2009, 19 of the 25 songs were sung in English. Many scholars in southern European countries, mainly France, Portugal, Spain and Italy argue that this fact represents a clear subversiveness of traditional and popular European music. The French deputy François-Michel Gonnot have already criticized the French television and launched an official complaint on the French Parliament[60][61]. On the other side, participants argue that pop style, and singing in English is more appealing and brings more votes from other participants. Nordic countries used this argument with success, as Sweden, Norway and Finland have already won at least one time the ESC singing in English." 95.93.234.32 ( talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I changed on the topic "Language in the ESC" the term freedom by the term allowance. It seemed a subliminal violation of WP:NPOV 95.93.234.32 ( talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Dealing with criticism and controversy for some discussion about this issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, i'm making a list of ESC songs by order of presentation in the whole ESC history, but i don't know who to count from 2004 :S It's first the semi-final in order and after the countries automatly qualified for the final, for the appearence order? can someone help me with this, thanks João P. M. Lima ( talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me give an example:
Until 2003
From 2004
order in the final: S, Q, Y, A1, N, G1, G, J1, P, F1
So, when we make a list with to know wicth entrie correspond to a number of acting in geral ESC story, do we make like this:
1º B 2º A 3º E 4º D 5º C
6º Z 7º H 8º J 9º L 10º M 11º K 12º W 13º O
14º S 15º X 16º Y 17º R 18º N 19º V 20º G 21º F 22º P 23º I 24º Q 25º A1 26º G1 27º J1 28º F1
Can someone helpe me on this? is realy important thank you João P. M. Lima ( talk) 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
i've made this for JESC, but there is not a semi-final, for the ESC, i only know how to do it until 2003, and this is very simple and easy to do. The tables that are in the articles are what is needed to do, the only work is change the acting order, to the number of the entry, and nothing more João P. M. Lima ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think we need to establish the correct name for this country here. I want to say - for the firm record - that I am English, and I have no links or particular affiliation or personal bias for or against either Greece or the nation of Macedonia. Personally, I really could not care less who "wins" the naming dispute: however, it is necessary that I make this clear statement in order that anyone who reads this knows where I stand.
My personal loyalty is, however, firmly with the Eurovision Song Contest itself. And since the ESC is run by the European Broadcasting Union, I propose that we follow the ESC/EBU conventions regarding the naming of Eurovision articles related to Macedonia - and indeed, when referring to that country in the text of the main article and of sub-articles. (You will note that I am referring to the country simply as "Macedonia" here. However, any Greek people reading this should not take that as an insult - I merely use the term in my own casual speech because it is the shortest way to say it.)
The EBU's method of referring to the country in question is as FYR Macedonia.
You can see it here on this official Eurovision website's list of 2010 participants here - and a sub-page specifically about that country here. The sub-page includes full-stops after the letters F, Y and R respectively. Also take a look at the EBU's website, where it lists active members of the union here. The country is listed in alphabetical place alongside "M" - and the broadcaster (MKRTV) is labelled as being of the "FYR of Macedonia".
While I am fully cognisant of the Macedonia naming dispute, it appears to me that the best way we should handle it is to compromise: we should not use the full "Former Yogoslav Republic of" name; and we also should not simply call it "Macedonia". It works out very well that this is exactly the same compromise that the EBU use on the official Eurovison website.
Therefore I propose three things. Firstly, that the country should be referred to as FYR Macedonia in all the Eurovision-related articles on Wikipedia. Secondly, that we keep an eye on the EBU's naming policy. And if the EBU ever decide to start calling the country by another name, then we can follow suit. Thirdly, if any Greek or Macedonian people complain about the name that we use here, we shall simply refer them to the EBU's usage, and tell them that if they wish to call the country something else then they should write to the EBU - and we will go with whatever they use.
Any thoughts? EuroSong talk 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This may interest some of you. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Udo Jürgens, may have been been overlooked because of a slight german bias. Nicole had exactly ONE hit, then retired and is in the section, whereas Jürgens has sold 100 million records and isn't. -- Snottily ( talk) 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Countries with large populations of non-nationals may have their televote influenced considerably. This has been cited as the reason for apparent bloc voting in the Balkan countries of the former Yugoslavia.[91]
This is full-blown crazy. What does "non-nationals" mean? These countries have similar cultures and speak the same languages. The stars in Croatia are popular in Serbia and vice versa. People are nationals of their countries in the largest proportion in each of those countries (there are some refugees in each of those countries, but that doesn't really explain why Croatia would always give the highest no. .of pts to Serbia, or Macedonia to Serbia, where there was no conflict to speak of). For example, I'm a Bosnian Serb and me voting for a Croatian or a Serbian song is not unusual. But I'm not a Bosnian non-national. I have the passport of BiH, and my family has never lived in Serbia in history. It's really about mutual intelligibility -- which is why Scandinavian bloc votes for each other all the time. It's the language and sensibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.121.160 ( talk)
As a "Scandinavian (technically, very little of Finland is part of Scandinavia, we use the term "the North", or Nordic), I know things are a little more complicated than just one big bloc voting. To some extent, the bloc voting comes from shared style and association with other countries' writers and musicians (like Denmark's entry in 2010 being written for Sweden originally), shared language (many Swedish speaking Finns, similarity between Finnish and Estonian, similarity between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, (can't speak for Icelandic and the L's)). On the other hand, bloc voting is only a problem when other blocs do it. ;) I know I didn't have a member of my bloc in my personal top 3 this year tho, and I'm hardly the only one. Would be interesting to know the exact results of the televote vs the juries' votes. 91.153.238.155 ( talk) 12:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
"Also the use of low cut tops and short skirts to attract a higher male vote an example would be Armenia's entry for 2010, Eva Rivas.[86]" This needs editing to remove the reference to Armenia. Although the reference [86] may comment on these issues, the Armenian singer wore trousers, and her top could not be described as "low cut". Perhaps another, appropriate, example could be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There were lots of far more fitting examples in this year's competition, and Rivas' outfit was a far cry from the tops and skirts seen in other contestants' outfits (or lack thereof). Seems like someone doesn't like Armenia. 91.153.238.155 ( talk) 12:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to say Germany hasn't yet won, just because Nicole's victory was for West Germany and not re-unified Germany. It's the same state, still called Federal Republic of Germany. In 1990, the GDR ceased to exist, and the territory then joined the Federal Republic. No new state was founded at all. So this should be changed. Rudefuss ( talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding scoreboard tables at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010#Scoreboard tables. -- 78.34.238.130 ( talk) 15:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have asked this question before, and did not get a response. The German wikipedia says that the prize does NOT go to the performer, but rather to the COMPOSER of the winning song. This is an important detail, which needs to be mentioned in this article, if it is correct. -- 345Kai ( talk) 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does Eurovision redirect here, rather than the disambiguation page? Eurovision (the Eurovision Network) is a valuable, enriching and productive collaboration between national broadcasting unions, whereas the Eurovision Song Contest is a load of.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie pearce ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As the song is called the winning song, and the trophy is given to the songwriters, I wonder who actually can be called winner of the annual Eurovision Song Contest? Regularly, the performers are said to have "won" it. So what about the songwriters? And what about the countries? Are all of them the winners, or is there some popular belief involved? Where are the exact rules and definitions? Where is the official declaration of the Eurovision Song Contest stating for example that Lena Meyer-Landrut (and nobody else) has won the recent edition? It's really amazing that the official webpage ( http://www.eurovision.tv/page/home) isn't helpful at all, and doesn't bother to answer this key question. And it's equally amazing that the fans of this event don't bother to ask. And if the fans don't ask, aren't there any experts on this field? -- Catgut ( talk) 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone is kind please allow me a question. Why is the flag of Andorra different in this article and another flag is in the article on Andorra country ? Andorra has a red flag, yet in this article its flag may confuse as it falsly resembles to the flags of the Democratic Republic of Moldavia and to the Republic of Romania. 188.25.107.55 ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In Countries (Under Winners), in the picture on the right, Croatia has failed to have been credited, despite winning the Eurovision while under Yugoslavia. In 1989, Riva won the competition with "Rock Me". Riva is a band from Zadar (which is Croatian), where all the members are born in the territory of Croatia. The 1990 competition was hosted in Croatian territory (Zagreb, Lisinski Hall) so it makes sense that Croatia be credited with the 1989 victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIOC1 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Winners" next to the sub-section "Countries" there is a map that states that Germany has won once, as of 2010. Could somebody change it please? -- Ajitirj ( talk) 15:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It will come as a surprise to Germans to hear their country hasn't won the contest twice (and to everyone else who will be referring to Germany's two wins in the run-up to the Dusseldorf contest). As the previous person has correctly pointed out the same international legal entity won the 1982 and 2010 contests. The official name of the country that won in 1982 was the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). The name of the country that won the 2010 contest was exactly the same...as was the flag it won under. The EBU scoreboard at the 1982 contest said 'Germany', not 'West Germany' (I'm looking at it now on DVD) as the 2010 scoreboard also said. How can it be argued that these are two different countries? There is no such country as 'the reunified Germany' and in 1982 the country's proper name wasn't 'West Germany'. All that changed between 1982 and 2010 was that this country expanded its territory. If Greenland or the Faroe Islands one day declares independence from Denmark will that mean a Danish win thereafter won't count as a victory by 'Denmark' because its borders changed? Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if there has ever been a short-term cancellation or replacement e.g. due to acute illness of an artist. According to the article, the song details have to be finalised a few weeks before the finale, but does this definitely exclude a "B option" if a singer (or the manager) has to cancel his or her participation e.g. a few days before the finale due to unexpected facts through no fault of his/her own (e.g. acute sickness, accident, maybe even death or becoming victim of a crime etc.)? Are there any exception rules for this case? Has anything like this ever happened to a participant of the ESC?-- SiriusB ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am originally from the UK and there everyone knows the contest, but it is typically seen as quite camp/kitsch, harmless entertainment but not something to be taken very seriously. People generally assume it will feature a lot of bad singing and amusing costumes and some dodgy voting tactics etc. It was (not sure now) traditionally presented by Terry Wogan, in a pretty jokey, lightweight kind of way [OK, I just checked, it's being presented by Graham Norton this year, that says it all]. The nearest the article comes to this is to say it is sometimes accused of featuring too much middle of the road "bubblegum pop". I think some indication of how it is viewed by participating countries would be interesting - I mean perhaps in some it is seen as an important cultural event and it is a serious matter of national pride to send the best possible act and to do well, whereas in, say the UK, it is generally seen as a bit of a laugh. Orlando098 ( talk) 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it a company? A non-profit? How is it funded? How is it organised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.221.155 ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the Irish dance show Riverdance and dancer and choreographer Michael Flatley should be included in this section. They did not participate in the Contest (1994). They were 'only' the intermission act. But they're definitely among the biggest ESC winnres of all times ... -- 93.193.211.164 ( talk) 01:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that greenland should be green,as it's a part of Denmark —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazorakosRazor ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems as if from the Eurovision Articles I've read through not much information is provided about the design, concept, technology and layouts of the Eurovision stages as they change over the years, is there potential for this to be included in either the Main ESC Article or the individual years' articles? Seems like it's a chunk of information that is missing... 220.253.234.1 ( talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Even http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/broadcast/plans/st61/index.html bothered about including meridian 40° East and parallel 30° North. So link them. HTML2011 ( talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
A user removed updated definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&diff=474866515&oldid=474864540 and claimed the edits were vandalism.
I think removing the updates is closer to vandalism.
Also some on of the older links did not provide the information it claimed to, since the external website didn't had that info under that URL anymore.
What is the Wikipedia policy here? Keeping wrong links or having updated links? HTML2011 ( talk) 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision of this discussion. CT Cooper · talk 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
CT Cooper for the invitation to engage in this content dispute debate. I shall try to point out, as clear as possible, why I feel linking map coordinates on this article, as was done by
HTML2011, is unnecessary. As we know, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic and full of encyclopaedic information for people doing research for one thing or another. Linking the exact location of longitude and latitude into an article of this nature would be a strange thing to do, as the European Broadcasting Area (EBA) isn't exactly accurate anyway, and linking those coordinate would be misleading information to researchers.
HTML2011, stated that
this website have the map coordinates hyperlinked. However, upon inspecting the site, I couldn't see any hyperlinks on the coordinates, and therefore found the statement to be false and invalid. Also it may be worth noting that the coordinates and map image shown on that website appear to be outdated itself. The map doesn't include countries such as Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, which are in the EBA. This again enhances the fact that the cite quoted is out-of-date and falsifying an article that needs to be as near-accurate as possible.
To incorporate hyperlinks to direct users to exact pages for the respective coordinates, don't serve any purpose that wouldn't be served by a
piped link, whereas linking specific details inking words such as Meridian and latitude would serve more of a purpose to a person doing research, as those links would direct them to the respective articles on Meridian (longitude) and latitude. If this article was on a geographic scale, such as an article on a place (country, city, or town) then I wholeheartedly would agree to hyperlinking map coordinates - but as it isn't a geographic article, then I see no point in directing a researcher to irrelevant pages for map coordinates. I sincerely hope this explains my reasoning clear enough. And I'd like to take this opportunity also, to apologise to
HTML2011 for incorrectly flagging a revert as vandalism. As I had stated to
CT Cooper, I was under the impression that if a user re-added details without seeking reason as to why they had been removed, constituted as vandalism. I now know that this is incorrect, and offer my sincere apologies.
Wesley
☀
Mouse 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm maintaining neutrality in this discussion, however I must point out that HTML2011 ( talk · contribs) had expressed the view just before the article was protected that the relevant content should be removed entirely for the reasons stated in this diff. He appears to be referring to the European Broadcasting Area article. What are other people's view on this? CT Cooper · talk 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I just have been invited: "Your input is needed to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest#The debate. If you don't wish to participate in the discussion any longer, that is fine, though this does make it more likely that the article will not go in the direction you want.". The thing is that I said everything already. My opinion is the EBA details are better kept in the EBA article. The ESC should better not be overloaded with meridians, latitudes etc., esp. since this information then is duplicated and as has been seen here more likely to be outdated. I linked the exact meridians and parallels when I wanted to find out where they run. If a user doesn't want to know, he does not need to follow the links. I don't understand the logic at all that Wesley Mouse wants to link to articles like meridian and latitude, but not the ones that actually delimit the region in question, i.e. the EBA. The meridian 40° East makes the difference why Belarus is in the EBA and Kazakhstan is out, despite both having territory in Europe under any definition. It also explains why Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia are outside the EBA. Thanks to Kosm1fent for mentioning the Russian-Georgian border. But I think all the details are better kept outside the ESC article, since the EBA article does it better job for this. HTML2011 ( talk) 01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
HTML2011 ( talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys. Sorry I haven't been around much recently - I only just checked here to see this dispute in full swing! I don't really want to get too involved, but here's a thought: how about someone create a single map showing exactly the boundaries of the European Broadcasting Area? The description of the boundaries is pretty clear, and is well sourced (as I remember researching it when I wrote it in the main article six years ago!) I always thought that a map showing the precise area would be a good idea - but sadly my graphical skills are lacking. Is anyone up for the task? EuroSong talk 11:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The full protection is due to expire today, and I think it is appropriate to let it expire. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreeing for having a better map at the EBA article. I tried to have lat+lon in one map, but the template failed. So it would be generally nice if the template could draw lat+lon at the same time. and, it additionally the template would accept an alternative map. That could be a CoA map and one could build a ESC map almost just from these things. HTML2011 ( talk) 22:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The following is an excerpt from the "Other" sub-section under the "Rules" section:
This statement contradicts itself, as it says the rules limiting performances to solos or duets lasted until 1970, but then says that starting in 1963, up to three performers were allowed. This should be edited, changing "1970" to "1962".
Also, the number of countries is given for the start of the contest, the 80's, and 1993, but not the current number of countries, which I think is probably the most relevant number, and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.74.84 ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is the original purpose of Eurovision listed here different to the History of the Eurovision Song Contest page and Eurovision official website - here it says it was to unify Europe but both the History of the Eurovision Song Contest page and the official website say it was to test new broadcasting technologies:
"In 1955, the EBU came up with the idea of an international song contest whereby countries, represeted by their respective public broadcasters, would participate in one television show, to be transmitted simultaneously in all represented nations.
This was conceived during a meeting in Monaco in 1955 by Marcel Bezençon, a Frenchman working for the EBU. The competition was based upon the Italian Festival di Sanremo, held for the first time in 1951, and was also seen as a technological experiment in live television: in those days, it was a very ambitious project to join many countries together in a wide-area international network.
Satellite television did not exist yet at that time, and the Eurovision Network comprised a terrestrial microwave network. Le Grand-Prix Eurovision de la Chanson Européenne was born!"
source: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/the-story
GoddersUK ( talk) 13:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are you using the preconstitutional (dictatorship) Spanish flag? It does not make sense at all. Spanish flag is this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/20px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png This is the one used in the Spanish version of the Wikipedia Eurovision page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.73.207 ( talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Section: Country making its début entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.73.207 ( talk) 15:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Spanish version of the page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_de_la_Canci%C3%B3n_de_Eurovisi%C3%B3n#Participaci.C3.B3n the constitutional flag is the one being shown in that section of the page. 95.19.73.207 ( talk) 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Since some of Eurovision Song Contest's format was inspired by the San Remo Festival did they have to ask the producers in Italy for their permission? Bleubeatle ( talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this AfD for a Eurovision related article on Suntribe. Users with Eurovision knowledge needed here.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
In the list of scrutineers there is a link to a man called Christian Clausen, but I think it's another person with the same name. If you look af the Danish or the Swedish articles about him, it sais nothing about Eurovision, and nor does the biography from Nordea. There is a picture of him there, and he doesn't at all look like the person who supervised ESC between 1993 and 1995.
There was a Danish tv producer called Christian Clausen who produced som of the national finals in Denmark prior to 1993. I'm not sure it's him, but it seems more likely.
If no one object, I will remove the brackets around "Christian Clausen" in the Voting section. Aejsing ( talk) 01:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
some person had written that the relegation system only lasted until 2001 so i changed it to 2003 to make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 ( talk) 12:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Something that has just occurred to me is that the infobox states that the contest was broadcast in 576i since 1956, now I can't speak for the whole of Europe, but in the UK, 576i didn't start until 1964 when BBC Two launched. BBC1 and ITV were still 405-line until they launched 576i services in 1969. I think this may need to be looked in for accuracy. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Shouldent Kosovo be shaded in light green on the map as it used to be part of Yogoslavia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.72.195 ( talk) 11:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the picture "Cities that have hosted the Eurovision Song Contest". Why is Vienna referred to as Wien, Rome referred to as Roma and Brussels referred to as Bruxelles while Munich is Munich, rather than München, and Naples is Naples, rather than Napoli? In my opinion, they should all be the English form, since this is English Wikipedia, but they should be either one way or the other rather than a mixture. Kapitan110295 ( talk) 04:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, as someone pointed out in the picture's talk page, Northern Ireland should probably be the colour of the rest of the UK, especially since Wales is. Kapitan110295 ( talk) 04:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"In all but five of the years since this rule has been in place, the winning country has hosted the show the following year. The exceptions are:"
The article says there are 5 exceptions and then goes on to name 6 exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.234.137 ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be good if we created a new page called "Eurovision" or "Eurovision Contests". This page would talk about the whole Eurovision franchise, not just about the annual song contest. This page would be similar to the Olympic Games page. The Olympic Games page explains about all the different Olympic contests; summer, winter and junior. I think there should be a Eurovision page about all the different Eurovision contests. That page would also include the table of host cities bellow. What do you think? :) Karlwhen ( talk) 3:08pm, 18 November 2013 (BST)
The map is wrong, showing Germany not having won twice. And please let's not hear the 'that was West Germany' argument that was soundly defeated on wikipedia at the time of Lena's victory 4 years ago. Germany is Germany... the country in 82 is the same state as it was in 2010 Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
When the word "Contest" is used within this article, in most occurrences it is being used as a short form of "Eurovision Song Contest". For example, if you say "Switzerland won the first Contest", that could really be written "Switzerland won the first Eurovision Song Contest". The only reason why the whole ESC title is not repeated throughout the article is that it would be superfluous and repetitious. Therefore "the Contest" is simply used in order to replace "the ESC". However because it is a short form of "the ESC", it remains a proper noun. Therefore it must be capitalised.
The word should only be written in lower case when talking about "a contest". For example: "The EBU decided to create a contest in which their member countries would participate".
The simple rule is: if you can replace "Contest" in the sentence with "Eurovision Song Contest", then it is a proper name and needs to be capitalised. If you can't replace it as such, then it's just an ordinary word and does not require a capital. EuroSong talk 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Eurovision}}
has used "debut" since
its creation which is probably one reason that "debut" seems to have been favoured in articles that use that infobox. If consensus cannot be reached on this issue, it won't matter too much as it is a trivial matter, but we should at least be being consistent within articles and under
MOS:RETAIN I actually believe "debut" is the established spelling for this article as this style has
been used since 2005. An editor revamping the article does not override the establishment of a particular spelling.This needs attention - as the show develops each year, so do participation rules. NewKingsRoad ( talk) 07:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How can the ESC be "the longest running annual TV song competition" if it is based on the Sanremo Music Festival, an annual TV song competition? Yes I've read the source, but it's contradicted in the very same paragraph. What's going on here?- 79.223.27.221 ( talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have been informed that articles going over 30k are fine, and it is not a barrier to achieving Featured status. Please participate in the Peer Review (as linked at the top of this talk page) and let me know your suggestions. Ten heads are better than one.. so you might notice some obvious mistake or omission which passed me by! EuroSong talk 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Featured Articles have a certain number of guidelines. One such guideline is that mentioning relative time differences should be minimised. So for example, to talk about "next year's Contest" when referring to Eurovision 2007, makes it clear that the text was written in 2006. That means, this text will become out-of-date next year. The best articles should not do this: they should be static information, which will be true for as long as possible. It is even borderline, to mention such things as "As of 2006, the country who has entered the longest with no wins to their name is Portugal." - because who knows? Portugal might win next year*; rendering the article out-of-date. It is also not a good thing to mention the 2007 participants, Czech Republic and Georgia, as if they have actually made their debut. The 2007 Contest has not happened yet. This information is speculative and subject to change. In fact I seem to remember some news about the Czech Republic intending to enter one year recently - but then they changed their mind and decided not to. Such information should not be included in the article until the end of the three minutes of those debut countries' songs - because up until then, anything can happen which might mean their participation is cancelled! EuroSong talk 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
* Yeah, right
Okay, we got it Featured :)
Remaining points to consider, as of now, are:
Hopefully we can get this on the main page on the date of the 2007 Contest. EuroSong talk 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed this statement:
for two reasons:
If anyone can prove me wrong, feel free to add that back to the article and leave a note here. Thanks! -- Lewis R « т · c » 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This was an interesting and growing section. Is there merit in restoring this as a separate page?
This is one of the most noticeable and might I say, notorious aspects of eurovision. Why isnt there a mention of the effects of neighbor voting, ethnically related countries voting for each other (greece/cyprus, Romania/moldova), minority voting (albanians in macedonia/turks in germany/russians in the baltic states) and so on?
What about Gina G? Not a one hit wonder..her entry 'Ooh Ah Just A Little Bit' is possibly the biggest selling hit to come out of the contest ever [that needs to be checked of course, if it's not Gina it might be Abba but i think she is well up there as it was one of the very few true international hits, most eurovision winners are not, most dont sell outside their country of origin, it would be good to include here a chart regarding that]. As a direct result of the show the record went straight to number 1 in the UK where it was a platinum record selling millions around the world and culminating in a top 12 place on the US Billboard Hot 100 which is pretty well unheard of for acts from this contest, again, outside of Abba. Gina subsequently had at least 5 more chart hits and a even over a year later her debut album 'Fresh' shipped over 600000 copies worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.34.107 ( talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely forgot about that, I should've brought that out earlier, but this is actually fairly important - some good criteria need to be set for the inclusion in the list. I am not into the "golden record" or chart things, but I believe some sensible criteria can be established - and then all potential winners should be checked against that. That said, I would rather the criteria would automatically exclude winners from, say, 5 last years, because I believe only enduring success is worth recognition - many artists rode on a short wave of popularity of their ESC entry, but it quickly faded away. Bravada, talk - 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but Ruslana isn't famous! Why Helena is deleted?-- Chronisgr 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes she has more success than she had with Antique(that was the reason they split up). Helena is the only winner of the last years that made a hit in Europe after her victory in Eurovision. Actually Mambo seems to be more successful in Airplay Charts around Europe than My Number One.Also My Number One entered at 45 in Billboard Hot Dance Charts and the single will be released this Tuesday in the US. -- Chronisgr 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to establish some rules here FAST! People keep adding whoever to the list, it is now quite contradictory to what the article says, as it seems that almost EVERYBODY achieved great international success after their win! Bravada, talk - 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The maps need to be changed, especially the first one. There should be more countries in yellow (active members, e.g. Egypt), but they can't even be seen on the map, let alone coloured. Also the map contradicts with the article: Tunisia in the Eurovision Song Contest. While on the subject of images, instead of having a picture from Congratulations (as that wasn't actually a Eurovision Song Contest), why not have a picture of the logo being unveiled, such as the top right image on this page: [1]. Red v Blue 11:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This section has no relevance or interest to anyone outside the small coterie of fans attending the event, why is it taking up precious space in the article?
I think that you should use coded phrases in your competition. I mean that you can decide what every phrase must content something special. You can decide modulation, tact and other things - just to make sure that it was the right composer that composed and no one else. I also think that you should make other rules about "WINNING". I mean action on scen is something else than the song that is performed. Performing can also be divided into different tasks 1) singing 2) dancing 3) how the actors are dressed 4) What happens on stage? can you winn just by performing a show? 5) how the music is played instrumentally.
Eva Kristina Jonsson Tegelgatan 7 716 30 Fjugesta
Sweden —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.20.61.66 ( talk) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
The countries that have never entered Eurovision, although they could if they wanted to, are the Czech Republic and Georgia in Europe, Algeria and Tunisia in Africa, and Lebanon in the Middle East. Lebanon was already planning on entering in 2005 but withdrew. This list should be mentioned in the article somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The European Broadcast area includes Palestine ( unless I'm missing something ) but the accompanying map doesn't. Shouldn't it? Skopelos-Slim 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what about the Vatican? It's a sovereign country, innit? But is it a member of the EBU? JIP | Talk 07:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
First, i saw this article and thaught that "Well, There must be some standard infobox for this (type of) music event. When i searched around and found out that there weren't any "music event" infoboxes at all, i made a dedicated ESC infobox. I later changed the name of the infobox to Infobox song competition, and removed the EBU logo.
People should remember that the purpose of infoboxes is primarily to give a quick overview of the company/organisation/annual event ect. - And not necessarily "infobox exclusive" GDPs and numbers.
A single, frames low-res jpeg logo in the right of the main article of this vast project was a little odd introduction, I think.
Please accept and IMPROVE this the infobox because the annual music event of Eurosong is such a typical infobox-article. Ssolbergj 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I like this addition. The infobox could be used in many different song competition articles. Nice. -- Bob 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The infobox is ugly, unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I also dislike Ssolbergj's edit warring. EuroSong talk 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Eurovision Song Contest | |
---|---|
Current: Eurovision Song Contest 2008 | |
File:Non-free image removed.jpg | |
Website | http://www.eurovision.tv |
Hello, I think an infobox is needed and the {{ infobox television}} fields are not so useful. The most relevant comparisons are Academy Awards or FIFA World Cup. What I would really want is a convenient way to go to this years contest! Additionally, a song contest infobox should contain some fields like:
In any case, I think something like the hacky use of the {{ infobox award}} here is already very nice, but perhaps someone would find the time to do this properly? Thanks, Vesal ( talk) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Having just checked the EBU website at [2] it would seem that the Vatican City may be entitled to enter the contest as well. There is a Vatican Radio station, although I'm not sure if they would need to have a TV station as well in order to enter. The current pontiff does have a better singing voice than his predecessor, although having a conclave of cardinals to decide their votes might not be allowable under the current rules. Moldovanmickey 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)MoldovanMickey Preceding comment repaired Peteb16 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
After 2002, Turkey's winning in the contest, festival's face has been changed.. New logo, new system, televote compulsory.. And the festival became popular as like as in the first years.
Anyway.. There arent any writing about Turkey..
Even when someone tries to add eurovision-turkey.com which announces turkish and english eurovision news.. it is deleted..
It will be good to add eurovision-turkey.com and Sertab Erener
~~ Maverick16
Please be realistic what you are talking about.. If you tell me that you dont want to allow Eurovision Turkey just for it is the site of Turkey i will stop this discussion here and i wont continue to argue.. But be sure that oikotimes and esckazakhistan are also national fan sites..-- Maverick16 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As a totally objective non-European Wikipedian who had never heard of Eurovision previous to stumbling upon this article today, I have to support (for what it's worth) Eurosong in his stance. He/she has explained his/her reasoning and rationale quite well concerning the topics raised by Maverick16. There is clearly no 'anti' anything in the responses, no hidden agenda and a perfect example of NPOV. In fact, I think the whole article is quite a good example of a multi-national / multi-cultural article being presented fairly to all and partial to none. Well done! CanadianMist 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that somebody is having the time of his life by spreading farcical information on several Eurovision winners. As I am French and try to get information for the French Wikipedia Eurovision winners section, I am a bit annoyed. At first, I noticed the joke on the Linda Martin link where she is described as "heavily botoxed", at first I was hugely amused (although I have no idea how she looks) but thought administrators were seeing to that because in the discussion page, there was a reminder of how they wanted the article. Then it started to occur to me that while creating some links for the French pages, I had discarded information that sounded strange or out of place and yesterday I realized that there is somebody having fun. I think all winners links should be looked at by administrators especially Linda Martin, Bobbysocks and the clairvoyant story, Udo Jürgens described as a womanizer (perhaps it's true but on a Wikipedia page, it does not sound serious) and his "family links", Massiel's birthdate and place and strange "political" biography, I don't think the Spanish link mentions it and perhaps Teddy Scholten or I can't remember who is supposed to have a hit by "recording instrumental versions of The Shadows' hit. Consequently, I'm not sure I can rely on the English version to create links for the French version. Something like "heavily botoxed" has no consequence because you know immediately it's a joke but more troublesome are other information that do not sound farcical and might be repeated and translated on other links out of good faith.
Kindest regards,
P.R —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.79.228.47 ( talk) 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
All Kinds Of Everything, Brotherhood Of Man and Save Your Kisses For Me should be changed to All Kinds of Everything, Brotherhood of Man and Save Your Kisses for Me respectively as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. Jogers ( talk) 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me who thinks that the country sub-sections should use the same style as each other? By this I mean compare Greece to Romania. The tables are different for a start and the Romanian page uses colour to show the highest result the country has ever recieved (surely colours should only be use on table for a first place entry, as on Greece's page?). Also, look underneath the external links on the Romania page, a small table linking to all pages for Romanian entries year by year. This would be a great feature on the sub-sections but I haven't seen it on any other pages. The main table on Belgium's page has a lot more information that other pages: who the composer was for each of the songs, the conductor etc. Why not on every page? I'll help with changing them as much as I can, but being a newbie to Wikipedia, I don't know how use all the tables, "safely" edit them, etc. I'd appeciate thoughts on this matter and any help! -- Gottago 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Should this start "From 1957 to 1962..."? Also the cited source (the 2005 rules) doesn't mention anything about numbers in previous years. Thryduulf 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
the article makes references to the many genres that have been seen in the past. maybe beside the genre's there could be a significant example or two. just for clarification. because i read nordic music, and i had a hard time finding a specific band/song. ...Patrick ( talk, cntrb.) 04:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Several images in this article don't have a proper fair use rationale. The license of one other image is disputed. – Ilse @ 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I also removed the last fair use image without rationale from the portal link. – Ilse @ 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The categories Eurovision Song Contest by year and Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest shouldn't be included by the use of the protected navigational templates used at the bottom of the article. – Ilse @ 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Archived FAR at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Eurovision_Song_Contest/archive1; pls see instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed three images which had been tagged for deletion. This was mainly motivated by the increased visibility of the article because it's on the main page, not because I necessarily think they should be deleted. If you would like to comment on those deletions, just get the link from the diff. It's seems like there are plenty of images for this article in the meantime. If you think that one of those images will obviously be kept and can provide better licencing info, feel free to re-add it. Savidan 16:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Whats the theme music called? Peace keeper II 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, but was this article selected as the AOTD for today in order to coincide with the contest in current events? · AndonicO Talk 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am new here, but I saw that there is a spin off festival missing onth main page, which is the European contest for minority languages. More on: http://www.liet.nl/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liet-Lavlut Hope it is useful. So the question is whether you would like to add it on the main page.
Interestingly, Serbia is only the second country in the entire history of the contest to win with its debut entry. The first was Switzerland, in the 1956 contest. But then, that's a given - it was the first contest, so any country would have won with its debut entry. JIP | Talk 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Wogan commentary? He has done the commentary for as long as I can remember, and, for Brits at least, is a HUGE part of the Eurovision contest.
Considering that Britain as a nation have stopped taking the Eurovision seriously in recent years, Wogan's sarcastic, often drink-induced commentary is a real treat for those who watch it with irony. Indeed, it is hard not to, nowadays, seeing how seriously other countries take this silly little talent contest. If it wasn't for Terry Wogan, many people, including myself, would not watch it.
Then why, in the Eurovision page, is there no mention of him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.112.137 ( talk) 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
But Terry himself often comments that drink is the only way he can get through it. And what is the problem with adding other people? If we add Tezzah, other countries can add others if they see fit. Also, on not taking it seriously, have you not seen the presenters they have each year? They act as if it's the biggest thing in the world.
If that's all other countries commentator's can come up with then its really rather tame. Wogan is biting and in many ways actually nasty about the other entries, not simply trying to be a little bit funny. As said, its the only reason most British people watch.
-
Finally someone who agrees with me. Tell me, anti-Wogans, do any other countries have a commentator who has been doing it since 1980 and that people see as an important part of Eurovision. To Brits, Terry Wogan=Eurovision and Eurovision=Terry Wogan
Why do you have to? This IS the English Wikipedia page for it. You wouldn't have a section about a French translation for Monty Python and the Holy Grail on the Monty Python page. Also, as pointed out, the other countries don't have, as far as I know, a commentator as symbollic of Eurovision as Terry Wogan.
Why can't we just add Wogan in, and if it means so much to anyone to add their own commentator in, then let them? If no-one cares enough to change it, then I don't see the problem. And my question still stands, which you have never answered: have any of the other countries had a commentator who did it as much as Wogan?
Hahhahaha and why don't we list all the other 41 commentators from other countries?? Why is this Terry Wogan so important, because he's ignorant and has no respect for something that to others mean more?
How on earth is Wogan ignorant? He knows more about Eurovision than anyone else in the country. Would you rather some boring commentator who took the silly little contest seriously? And yes, my question is relevant. If he's the commentator who's been doing it for the longest time, then this has to count for something.
Yes it does belong here. You have continued to ignore my points simply so you can get your way. Something tells me you would thrive under a fascist government. So I shall repeat: "If he's the commentator who's been doing it for the longest time, then this has to count for something." And yes, that is internationally. If you can prove me wrong, then do so.
Hey hey kids! I'm back! I just noticed this on the Terry Wogan Wiki page: "Many European countries broadcast the BBC's coverage of the event rather than going to the expense of covering it themselves." So... whadayasaynow? - person who has been asked to sign his comments
If "many European countries broadcast the BBC's coverage of the event rather than going to the expense of covering it themselves", then wouldn't that make Wogan an international commentator... or something... - Mr. Sign
My agenda? What a bizarre question... I am simply one of the millions of people who watch Eurovision solely for Wogan's commentary, and feel that he is not being given enough credit. I could equally ask what your agenda is. Have you been scarred by a traumatic childhood experience with Terry Wogan which causes you to hunt him down ruthlessly, putting him down every step? It sounds bizarre, I'm sure, but as did your question.
Godsake! Why can't you just content yourself with writting sbout that Wogan on the article about the UK in the eurovision song contest? You do know there is a page like that, don't you? Plus, the UK isn't the only english-speaking country in the world, and most non-britons (with very, very few exceptions) don´t know who wogan is. I myself only heard about him when I moved to the uk!! I love my country's commentator, but it isn't because of that that I'm gonna write about him. Write about wogan on the page about the Uk on the eurovision song contest!!
User:Slydevil has removed a paragraph in the article's lead - see diff. I disagree with this removal. The reason given was "it makes some very strong claims without any sort of references, it's informal, doesn't do the rest of the article justice". My response is:
This paragraph was present when the article passed Featured Article status, and no-one said there was anything wrong with it. Regarding references, not every single sentence needs a citation - and the rest of the article speaks for the truth of the paragraph. I would say that the fact that it's one of the most watched non-sporting events in the world (a referenced statement), and the list of participants, quite nicely back up the fact that it's currently a contest of "mammoth proportions" - and the section on national selections shows just what a household name it is.
Does anyone have anything to add to this, before I re-include it? I will wait to leave time for comments. Thanks. EuroSong talk 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If the deleted paragraph served as an adequate summary of the article, it should be restored. It doesn't need references as long as the points mentioned in the lead are referenced later in the article. = Axlq 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What facts is this: "the word "Eurovision" is one of the few household names to be recognised across an entire continent." exactly summarising? It's an assumption, not encyclopedic matierial. The paragraph merely sensationalises whats already been stated in the previous paragraphs. It doesn't contribute anything useful, at all. Slydevil 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The (most recent) map was deleted, because it was unreferenced (and looked like someone just made it up). Whichever referenced (not original research) map eventually is put up, hopefully it also makes a distinction between the "two-way" (and multi-way) alliances (incl., e.g., Cyprus<->Greece, Belarus<->Russia, Romania<->Moldova, to name the most "obvious" ones), and the "one-way" alliances, (e.g., Germany->Turkey, Estonia->Russia, i.e., cases where a large immigrant community regularly vote for their country of historical origin, from where there is no significant regular "voting in return"). -- Klamber 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The entire ESC has to be broadcast live in national TVs and viewers vote in the same 15 minutes, I know. But in Armenia the broadcast begins at 00:00am and ends at 03:00am (or 01:00 to 04:00?). So, is there the Eurovision Song Contest so popular? If yes, how can it be so popular? I think this issue is very interesting. User:Skafa/Sign 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Eurovision related wiki site has launched. you can connect on this site at www.eurovision-wiki.com
Can we add it on external links section?-- 88.226.57.215 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the map on "Voting Alliances". The image was removed by User:Klamber, with a edit summary "deleting unreferenced and geographically inaccurate map (e.g., why are Estonian islands different than mainland?". The user has now been blocked, suspected of being a sockpuppet, -- Petri Krohn 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
They're members of the EBU, aren't they eligible? Shouldn't they be shown as so on the map?
I made one, a half year ago: you can see Egypt, Jordan, Libya... but not Azebaijan. But I can make a new one.-- 82.212.57.246 13:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Are English lyrics (from non English speaking countries) common for songs that do well? If so that should be included in this sentence. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the idea of some über-smart who divided languages of former Yugoslav entries into current divisions, by what I must presume is a geographic criterion. There were no "Croatian", "Bosnian" and "Serbian" languages before 1990. I really believe that we must stick to the official language of the songs here, and of course during ex-Yu there was only the common language (Serbo-Croatian, with a couple of songs in Slovene language, which was a separate story all the time). Otherwise we are engaging in original research. Just because somebody was from republic X does not mean they sang in X-ian language. Going into analyzing the words of the songs to figure our whether they were "really X-ian", "actually Y-ian", or whatever (which - mind you - some people actually do), is a road straight into WP:OR. Once again I believe we must revert all of these to their original official language, Serbo-Croatian, and stick to this. Could somebody else perhaps comment before I make large-scale corrections (this must be done for basically every year 1961-1992). -- Dzordzm ( talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been confirmed by the EBU and at esctoday.com that Azerbaijan and San Marino are to participate in the 2008 contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbonjela ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the note contained within the page source. For convenience I shall copy it here:
Note: Do NOT add Azerbaijan or San Marino until they have actually participated in the Contest.
Even though they may be officially-confirmed participants, we can NOT say that they have actually "made their debut" until they have performed on the stage on the night of the Contest. This is a list of actual debut entries: not just "intentions to participate". It has happened before that a country has confirmed its intention to participate - and gone so far as to select a song(!) - but then withdrawn at the last moment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (read the rules), and we can not predict the future. These countries should only be added to the list after they have performed live on stage on the night of the Contest.
Please take note. EuroSong talk 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K. - Citius Altius Fortius ( talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the prize for best song was awarded to the composer and not the artist performing. Am I right? I think this issue needs to be addressed in the article.-- 24.85.68.231 ( talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted an addition to the article which suggested that 97% of the Contest's funding comes from the Big Four, and 60% from the BBC alone. This is clearly untrue; certainly searching has brought no evidence whatsoever. Chwech 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The EBU has confirmed that Scotland could submit an entry separate from the rest of the UK. Whether this means that the UK could in future be represented by the 4 home nations remains to be seen, but I have added the issue of Scotland's possible participation to the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense intended, but this map is quite bad and violated WP:OR as far as I can see. To begin with, Azerbaijan is entering this year and is still coloured yellow, so that would mean that the map is in fact from last year. By that time Kosovo wasn't a country and certainly not able to join, nor would it be this year so the yellow is just wrong. As San Marino is entering this year, it should at least be coloured yellow. All in all, the map is a mess and detracts from the quality of the article instead of adding to it. That's the reason I'm removing it. JdeJ ( talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In this section i have provided a Youtube clip, which is officially provided by the BBC on the BBC's official Youtube channel whereby 2007 UK entrants Scooch blame political voting for poor performanc at Eurovision.
Someone removed this so i edited it and retyped it.
Would appreciate someone tidying it up a bit (i am not paid to do this). However I feel documented evidence from a reliable source (the BBC's official Youtube channel) is relevant to this.
This is because while often those not affected may blame politics here is eveidence of a PARTICIPANT blaming it.
As this is on the BBC's official Youtube channel it is not a copyright violation and is online verifiable from a reliable source (the BBC's official Youtube channel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
in my inbox it says: The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpFZB9hecuU) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to.
The link I provided on Youtube is for the BBC's official channel. It is NOT an irrelevant link. The BBC is the UK state television broadcaster. The clip was on the BBC's official Youtube channel. The BBC made the clip available on Youtube. I feel therefore there is a problem with wikipedia itself.
I feel my contributions (chulcoop) were releveant and would like a WikiExpert to look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.211.196 ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This refers to The version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&oldid=204120654
I did not believe that the "references" need to Online Verifiable.
As far as i understood the references could be for any medium. The evidence is available on Youtube but i am not allowed to do that for wiki.
Surely, for example, the actual broadcasts and any recordings of this are reference themselves.
Printed articles can be refereneced on wiki even if not online verifiable.
Anyway as further backup here is the 2008 entries from the official eurovision site as backup:
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/participants-2008
The videos are contained on there
Video clips for most of 2007 as backup can be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/eurovision/2007/contestants/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.211.196 ( talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The most important result of a contest is the winner. Who are they ? Nobody knows them, at least nobody from the team who wrote this article. In such an article a complete list of all winners and the votes they received would be mandatory.
Instead, I can see absolutely irrelevant results from an obscure TV show from Germany (probably the authors are Germans) showing votes from a small fraction of Europe's population, and nothing about the true winners.
My suggestion is just to delete this garbage. Can anybody write a serious article about the Eurovision Song Contest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that following my intervention, at least a link to the winners was added to the article. As about the article, I don't think it contains "high level of information". I would say it contains "lots of data" if you can see the difference. Like is that TV show from Germany, supposed by the authors to reflect the opinions of the whole Europe. Really ?
Another worthless information is the divagation about political voting. When voting, people consider many criterias some related to music, some not. It's everybody's right to vote as they wish. Its pointless WHY they vote in a certain way, what is important WHO they vote. Because recently the number of the countries expanded seriously, an alliance between several countries is too little in the global math. It simply doesn't matter. Such alliances cannot have a serious impact, they cannot push a worthless contestant to win if the other countries vote for somebody else.
By the way, the map of the political voting present here in the discussion page is a nonsense. The person who made it shows a total lack of knowledge of the history.
Hungary was once a big empire, now it's shrinked to a small country. All of their neghbours took away territories from them. Because of that reason they don't like any of them excepting Austria.
The republics of the former Yugoslavia, a few years ago killed each others going as far as ethnic cleansing. In the opinion of the author of the map, now they are in love with each other.
Romania and Bulgaria do not love each other, last "warm" relation between the two countries was the Romanian military invasion of the Cadrilater at the begining of the 20-th century. (Bulgaria attacked Yugoslavia. Romania answered by attacking Bugaria because of a military aliance between Romania and Yugoslavia. The unexpected attack from Romania forced Bulgaria to ask for peace. More realistic would be an alliance between Romania and Serbia, but no such thing is displayed on the map.)
I suppose the grey colored parts of the map (the west side of the map) are the "honest" countries, among them, obviously is Germany. How about the votes casted for Turkey due to the large Turkish origin population in Germany ? (Admit it, the authors are Germans.) And how about the French speaking countries ?
Just to mention a few issues... there are much more. But as I said earlier, political voting is irrelevant and without any serious impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And another issue. Who is the best of all times? That's a nonsense, you cannot compare an artist from the sixties to one from 2007. There were different genres. The taste of the voters changed in time, the music evolved. You ask peolple having the musical tastes of the 2007 to vote for somebody from 1960. Obviously they will not appreciate it. Another point is that people tend to like the music they know. Nowadays you can listen on the radio/TV the winners from the latest years. They are the only known by most of the public so they will receive the most votes.
But if you want to talk about the best I would say you cannot skip Gigliola Cinquetti the winner from 1964. She got 49 points, the second placed got 17. That's about one third of the winner's points. Nobody ever won the contest with such a crushing difference. What's her problem? She's not German ? But you mention the German Nicole several times. I don't deny she deserved to win but there's nothing outstanding about her among the other winners.
BTW, the winners' page it's just a plain list, nothing about the other contestants, nothing about who voted for who and how many points they received from each country. I can recall, I saw one or two years ago on Wikipedia a fully documented article about that, but the authors of this article simply removed it. First, they destroyed valuable information. Second, they showed a blatant disrespect for the work of other people. What if next year your article will be removed as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Briefly, my point is that you should focus the article on the song contest. You talk about everything but the contest itself. Well, there's a little exageration, there is valuable info in the article, but you miss the essential: the contest itself. The complete list of the contestants, what voting system was, how many points received every contestant, who gave those points to who, what was the song's title, who composed it.
Let's say that I consider your info about political voting interresting and I want to see who voted for who. Can I ?
Let's say I'm from a country from where no contestant ever won. In this case I'm primarily interrested to see not the winners but the results of the other contestants. Can I ?
But even if I'm not from such a country I still want to see all the results. I know the work of many musicians and I want to see how they were appreciated, regardless if they won or not.
Indeed the article is very long, but that's because of too much irrelevant info. Remove it and talk about the contest itself not TV shows broadcasted in only one European country.
Sorry, maybe I'm a little too harsh, but I'm frustrated knowing there was an article containing all kinds of info I was interrested in it and now it's gone. I came to find some info I knew it was here but I was forced to leave without. Should I be pleased ?
I think at this time the world's most important source for encyclopedic information is this site. I do not intend to beg you to do a good job. You MUST do it. It's an OBLIGATION, not a privilege. Millions, maybe billions of people watch you. Respect them and respect yourself. I never tried to edit the page, because I'm aware I cannot do a world class level work. If you can, then do it. If you can't, follow my example and let others.
Does anybody know if or when Kosovo is entering the eurovision song contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamml13 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What about a Serbian television company? They must have an EU membership Adamml13 ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an anonymous editor who is making a good-faith edit, trying to change "Ireland" into "Republic of Ireland" - stating that this has to be the case to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. I am replying to him/her here, since s/he is an anonymous editor and therefore has no reliable user talk page. Please take note that it is not necessary to use the full name of the country unless there is actually clear confusion. No-one is going to read about Ireland having won the Contest 7 times, and assume that it is Northern Ireland! It would not make sense anyhow: Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and we would not talk about it having won the Contest on its own - even if all the British winners had been from NI! Also, no-one refers to NI as just "Ireland". If people want to talk about NI, they always include the "Northern" prefix.
We also talk about The United Kingdom in the article: but did you know that there also used to be a United Kingdom of the Netherlands? However, we don't have to use the full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (for that is its official name), because there is a convention on Wikipedia which states that common names should be used unless there is a good reason not to. "Ireland" is the country's common name. Besides, in the Eurovision Song Contest itself, the country is known as "Ireland". The EBU call it as such. And to the best of my knowledge, not one single member of any Irish delegation has ever complained, petitioning the EBU to put the words "Republic Of" onto the scoreboard beside their country's name. So - thank you for your good-faith edits, but I hope that you can see that it is not necessary to change the name of the country. EuroSong talk 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In the key it states that purple is used for countries that intended to enter but later withdrew. Currently Lebanon is the only country in this colour but surely Tunisia should be in purple as well since it says on their page that they were supposed to take part in the 1977 contest and were even drawn to take part in slot number 4 but later withdrew due to unknown reasons. I would change the map if I could but I wouldn't know where to begin! -- gottago ( talk) 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any regulations about using profanity and obscene language in ESC ? Obviously not, because 2008 Estonian entry "Leto svet" used Finnish obscene word pano (sexual intercourse) on stage. Was that the first time a four letter word was used on Eurovision ? Warbola ( talk) 12:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is not Kosovo a part of Serbia in one of the maps? By this standard you should not have Baskia as a part of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.212.10 ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Would people please stop adding the winners table to this article. There is an entirely separate article which lists all the winners. It is not necessary to give ALL the winners in this main article. As per the Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia is not just a random collection of information. This article is structured properly, and flows well. We may as well have a complete list of all entries, and all the voting in the history of the Contest! No... there are separate articles for all the little details. The main article is not the right place for this table. If anyone disagrees then they are welcome to reply here with their reasons - but please stop edit-warring over the matter. EuroSong talk 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have re-added the radio comment in the ORIGIN section with a link from the official Eurovision site to back up the sentence. ChanelleHayes ( talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting piece of information, and am glad you think so too. I have just noticed the article is now semi-protected, so could someone please re-add this segment to the ORIGIN section please? With the right format, seems I did it wrong before, sorry. Here is the text...
"The 1956 Eurovision Song Contest was primarily a radio show, although some cameras were taping the contest for the few Europeans who had a television set at that time."
And this is the link... http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=273
Many thanks. ChanelleHayes ( talk) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Terry Wogan made some interesting comments at the end of tonight's contest - he said that the UK and Western Europe should think about whether or not they want to bother competing anymore, because the perceived political voting had got so bad. I added it and tagged it "citation needed" - I'll try to add one when it makes it's way into something I can cite (technically it might count as original resource until then...?). Señor Service ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional - I think someone is taking it out again. It's relevant stuff, and for people in the UK, Terry Wogan is *the* voice of Eurovision - so it's noteworthy too. Think it should go back in.
"Most recently, during UK coverage of the 2008 competition, Terry Wogan commented on the tendency of former Soviet Republics to vote for one another, and even suggested that the UK and Western Europe should consider whether it was worth competing anymore. citation needed" Señor Service ( talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not UK's Terry Wogan alone who critizises these voting pattern. Long year German TV announcer Peter Urban does the same, referring to "Balcan Connection" and "Eastern Block Connection". So it is not a UK aspect to the contest, but a generell aspect that should be in the article. The turkish song will get 10 or 12 points from Germany even if their singer leaves the stage in a hurry to take a piss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It should certainly be added as soon as possible. Wogan sounded extremely disillusioned at the end of tonight's contest, and given how his views tend to pretty much hit the nail on the head for the rest of the UK with regards to Eurovision, it certainly raises some interesting points over Britain's future with the contest, certainly. The Times recently had an interesting article about the politicised voting as well, if I can find it again. I'd say that most British people are certainly getting rather cynical about the contest, and on a rather unencyclopaedic note I'd be very surprised if the UK is still competing (or at least bankrolling the thing) in about two or three years' time. 82.19.11.242 ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Luxemburg, Italy and in 2008 also Austria do not participate to this because of political voting. The Swiss newspapers also want their country not to take part in this scam anymore. Won't be long before either Germany - their "Terry Wogan" does lots of criticism during the voting broadcast too - or UK will quit. If Balcans and Russians want their song contest, they should fund it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.116.129 ( talk) 07:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have just made a large re-organisation of this section, integrating some of the comments above, and hoping that the result is consensual. There remains intense activity on the page... with reverts to early versions of the section or the whole article, given last night's event. cckkab ( talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
wuu:欧罗维竞唱歌比赛 it is the 4th Asian language page. Thx !!
Lulu was famous before being in this competition (if her first entry was in 1969 when she joint-won.) I would have deleted her from the list of people who came to attention in Eurovision but it's looked for anons. -- 81.178.96.15 ( talk) 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we expand on the funding situation (especially "the big four") on actual costs involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.101.190 ( talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we mention that there was some controversy about Cliff Richard losing out on winning because of the alleged bribing of the judges by Spain's Franco in 1968? As mentioned here: http://www.nme.com/news/cliff-richard/36423 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.93.184 ( talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
From 1957 to 1970, only soloists and duos were allowed on stage. From 1963, a chorus of up to three people was permitted.
These two statements directly contradict each other. What are the correct dates? OrangeDog ( talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
To the people trying to dispute this: In 1992, the country which participated in the Eurovision Song Contest was called Yugoslavia, and it entered under this flag:
Yugoslavia. The song "Ljubim Te Pesmama" was included in the list of performances of Yugoslavia. In the year 2000, no-one talking about the ESC ever stated that S&M debuted in 1992! It is only now in recent times, since Serbia & Montenegro have taken part (since 2004), that nitpickers have tried to say this.
Read the Wikipedia entries on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. The former states that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro, existed from 1992 to 2003. The latter states that Serbia and Montenegro was a union of Serbia and Montenegro, which existed between 2003 and 2006.
Therefore, it can be clearly seen that as political entities, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed from 1992-2003 and Serbia and Montenegro existed from 2003-2006. There is no justification for claiming that the Eurovision entry in 1992 was entered under the flag of S&M. It wasn't. S&M didn't exist as a political entity under that name in 1992.
If someone really, really wants to be pedantic then they could remove the 1992 Yugoslavian entry from the list of other entries from Yugoslavia, since it was technically a new political entity between 1991 and 1992. However, this is already addressed in the article, which does state in footnote b: "The entries presented as being from "Yugoslavia" represented the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except for the 1992 entry, which represented the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." EuroSong talk 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The main article says that Serbia and Montenegro debuted in 2004, but the countries page says that they debuted in 1992. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.175.67 ( talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed two of the names from the winners section - Lulu and Carola, since they'd both achieved success long before their wins (it seems in fact that they both had more success BEFORE their wins). While I was at it I added a photo (Bucks Fizz performing at Eurovision) as I felt the article needed a picture of an actual artist performing at the contest, and since it's generally considered that this particular act won more on appearance than performance it seemed the most appropriate (although perhaps Lordi might qualify for that as well). -- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now twice reverted the addition of irrelevant information near the top of the article. One editor is adding the fact that the 2004 Contest was held in Istanbul. While this fact is undoubtedly true, it is not necessary to mention it in the place in question. It is a caption to the image of the Eurovision logo, which currently states that the logo has been in use since 2004. There mere fact that this was the first year has no particular relevance to the fact that that Contest was held in Turkey: it's not as if the logo was designed by a Turkish person, with a particular Turkish motif. Therefore it is superfluous to add the location of that Contest in the image caption. Indeed, the IP in question who reverted originates in Turkey - and one must question his or her motive. Does s/he really seek to improve the quality of this Wikipedia article, or does s/he merely have an agenda to promote Turkey? I leave this comment here on the talk page in case the editor wishes to enter into discussion (as opposed to edit-warring). EuroSong talk 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that from 1978 to 1999 the songs had to be sung in one of the country`s official languages. However, in 1983 Finland presented a song called La Dolce Vita, in which parts (every part where the singer sung La Dolce Vita) were song in spanish/Italian. Would`t this have broken the rules? ABC101090 ( talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If Iraq is part of the European Broadcasting Area, shouldn't it then be eligible to participate in the contest? The current map does not include Iraq, so I think there may be some caveat I am missing. Chedorlaomer ( talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I put this in the discussion about the rules page, when I meant that the 2009 rules contradict information in THIS article.
The 2009 rules ( http://eurovision.tv/upload/esc2009rules.pdf) say:
"1) Should there be a tie for the last position in a Semi-Final (because two songs have received the same number of points on the basis of the televoting results) or for the first place in the Grand Final, as well as any other situation where a tie occurs, the winner shall be the song which has obtained points from the highest number of countries. If the tying songs have received points from the same number of countries, the highest number of 12-point scores shall be decisive. If the winner still cannot be determined by this procedure, the number of times ten points have been awarded shall be the deciding factor. If necessary, this method shall continue until account has been taken of the number of times one point has been awarded.
In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the Semi-Final in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties."
This clearly breaks ALL ties (there was always a debate about ranking countries as "=n" when tied for a place other than first or tenth or whenever it mattered).
This says (contrary to the article) that after exhausting the tiebreakers (very unlikely, of course) among two (or more) songs tied for first place, the song performed earlier will be declared the winner. This actually does come into play for ties near the bottom of the rankings where two countries can have an identical set of votes.
121.90.247.186 ( talk) 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we're rapidly running up against the three revert limit here (if not having passed it), so lets discuss it. Looking at one version of the change introduced:
nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting, with the introduction of so many ex-Soviet nations into the EU, been achieved.
[e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&diff=278111910&oldid=278108517]
My objections to this are multiple:
i) While jury voting has been introduced to remove the influence of blocks, to say that it is not a 'conclusive solution' is to pre-suppose what will happen at the next contest. It is possible that it *will* be a 'conclusive solution', and it is not our place to judge yet what will happen ahead of time.
ii) Blocks other than the former Soviet countries have been noted - notable a 'Nordic' block of Sweeden, Denmark, Finland, etc. and a former Yugoslav block. To highlight the former Soviet block are especially notable is prejudicial towards the people of those nations.
iii) You keep saying the 'EU' - the EU is the European Union, while the contest is organised by the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), an independent institution. Membership of the EU and EBU are entirely separate. The expansion of the EU in 2004/2007 didn't have a notable affect on the contest... in fact since 2007 no EU nation has won the contest [Serbia and Russia].
iv) We already mention the existence of block and that juries are an attempt to counter them. You are restating information which is elsewhere in the article.
v) Adding 'and controversy' to the section title doesn't actually add any information, or clarify anything.
Please discuss any comment here before adding this information into the article again.
-- Neil ( talk) 08:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
nor has a conclusive solution to the problem of 'Eastern bloc' voting [1] [2] [3] been achieved.
Above is the included information, the selection you quoted is incorrect. The way this info is being targeted for removal is very suspect. Reasons for the Eastern Bloc's (perceived) effect on the Eurovision Song Contest (and the reactions it provoked in the rest of Europe) are clearly sourced. It's the principal reason behind the re-introduction of an 'expert jury'! Anything else is obfuscation and I think editors desperate to remove this information need to give real reasons why they think that is acceptable.
i) Nothing is being presupposed. Read the sources.
ii) No 'Nordic' block has been the source of such sheer contention. However if you'd like to include sourced information about it, go ahead.
iii) I said it once and removed it entirely. View the edits.
iv) The 'mention' is nowhere so specific or accurate throughout the article; in fact it prefers to gloss facts rather than state them.
v) The words are not synonymous.
I hope these issues can be resolved, I can appreciate this may be a 'pet' article for some of you, but the inclusion of more accurate and unbiased information should be a priority. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! ( talk) 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Use the source:
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1363
"In Belgrade, we saw a difference in judgment of the public and the back-up juries, and we believe a combination will make the show more interesting," said Svante Stockselius, Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the EBU.
Very clearly, the win by Russia last year was egregious enough (in terms of discrepancy between the public vote and the jury vote) to lead to the reintroduction of juries. In the past, Mr. Stockselius has frequently emphasized the agreement with regards to the winner between the televoters and the jury.
121.90.247.186 ( talk) 13:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[4] BananaNoodle ( talk) 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
'The most points ever done by a competitior is bya norwegian. Alexander Rybak i 2009, Moscwa. '
I'm not even too sure what this was supposed to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that historically majority of the successes were MOR pop is true, but I don't think that it is true that Lordi were the first success of the deviating formula. Actually, the musical direction of the festival began to change soon after the withdrawal of the orchestra (oh, how I regret them doing that ...). Actually, the right after that a period of new countries winning the ESC with predominantly dance- and ethno-pop has begun (and still not ended). So, to be specific, I think that the winners like Padar&Benton, Sertab, Ruslana or Helena Paparizou were actually pretty far from the "middle of the road". 195.250.209.136 ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
--- I was not referring specifically to the music style, but let me say the the most used style is pop, and as everyone knows, pop has roots in America and not in Europe, and the contest is strictly European (I suppose). Despite this simple fact the omnipresence of the English language in the festival is perverting the national languages, as I said 19 of the 25 participants sung in English, which obviously doesn't represent the country culture, and language is a prominent cultural factor. And let me tell you that I have nothing against English language; in Moscow the best song in my opinion was sung by Jade from UK. But each country should be obliged to use their one language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.234.32 ( talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"In addition, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom control territories under their sovereignty outside of Europe. The Kingdom of Denmark, of which Denmark is the hegemonial part, includes Greenland in North America."
The only one I think you could mean would be Cyprus but this wouldn't be right.
Thanks, Sophia —Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaSpl ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Liechtenstein is part of the Council of Europe.[1]
It is not part of the Europan Broadcasting Union (See:
Talk: Eurovision Song Contest#Iraq?):
"Active members are those whose states fall within the European Broadcasting Area, or otherwise those who are members of the Council of Europe."
So there (is a/are) (country/countries) within the Council or Europe and Broadcasting Area, but not within the European Broadcasting Union.
The rest of what I have to say concerns the article of the European Broadcasting Union, so I'll talk there.
Also, Tobsonhelsinki stated on
Talk: European Broadcasting Union#Liechtenstein in Eurovision:
"It is true that Liechtenstein tried to enter the Eurovision Song Contest once,... it was in 1976..."[2]
Should Liechtenstein be included in this article?
Liechtenstein is eligable to participate as of 15 August 2008[3], but has not participated in the Eurovision contest yet. (See:
European Broadcasting Union#Potential active EBU members)
Should this be included in the map if it is included in the article?
[5] The Council of Europe
[6] Eurovision History
[7] 1FLTV
× Prince Naveeen 1000: Unless you beg for more ;) × 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Already commented on WP:Eurovision, but I've requested this article is given semi-protection, in light of recent vandalism. YeshuaDavid ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
[8] = Citation is needed here, otherwise this is a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt ( talk) 09:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
To whoever keeps removing the information about Italy being part of a big 5, if the decide to return to the Eurovision, please STOP! It was previously agreed that it should be included in the section - considering the information also came with 100% reliable sourcing. Mr Stockselius exclusively told reported that Italy IS part of a BIG 5 if they should return. I very much doubt the Executive Supervisor of the contest would make up such a thing - even to reporters at an OGAE meeting. ( Pr3st0n ( talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
Pr3st0n has asked me to provide a third opinion here, I will do so tomorrow morning (UTC). Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the issue and my third opinion is as follows: I think a brief mention of Italy being part of a potential Big Five is relevant to that section, as it is directly linked to the Big Four. The sourcing seems fine, though try and use {{ cite web}} and other such templates as it will help this page remain featured. Wikipedia does allow speculative content, though per WP:CRYSTALBALL it has to be sourced. More detail on Italy should however be placed in its main article i.e. Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. I would recommend that the current section title remain as it is, as 'Big Four/Five' is rather awkward, and the section is still primarily about the Big Four. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is amusing to note that the EBU website contains text which has been directly lifted out of this article :) EuroSong talk 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find a reference to this, and it has been added into the 1963 Eurovision Song Contest article as well. This seems somewhat at odds with the EBU rules. Am I missing something? AlexandrDmitri ( talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
One editor has recently been trying to add a sentence to this article which speaks of the Czech Republic withdrawing from the Contest. It is accompanied by a reference from the BBC news website.
While this news may be of interest to Eurovision fans, it does not belong in this encyclopædia article - especially not as a disjointed statement in the article's lead section! I am leaving this comment here on the talk page for two reasons: firstly, because the editor in question (an anonymous IP) has now attempted to add the sentence twice, and I do not want to get into an edit war: I am therefore writing an explanation here on the talk page, as is proper. Secondly, as a general guideline for future new editors - please bear in mind that this is an encyclopædia article, not a news page for all the latest Eurovision snippets. Think of this article in a permanent state, in a paper encyclopædia. Think of it being read by someone who has never even heard of the Eurovision Song Contest before, and for whom reading this article is their first introduction to what the Contest even is.
With that in mind, I hope it is clear that - while a broad overview and history of the Contest is suitable for this article, the latest year-by-year news is not appropriate. EuroSong talk 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently added some information regarding the omnipresence of the English language in the ESC, I don't want to enter into a edit war, so I wont add it again. But I must say I added on the topic which concerns Criticism and Controversy. I supplied reliable sources stating that many scholars mainly in southern Europe argue that the omnipresence of the English language is depreciating European musical culture. I suppose the paragraph regarding this topic was written on an impartial way, I supplied sources and I added on a topic regarding controversy, I would like to know where is the partiality of this paragraph and why it is not acceptable in one encyclopaedia: "The Eurovision Song Contest shows also a evident submission of European culture to American musical influences due to various songs sung in English and the obvious and patent style of pop music which is commonly broadcasted in America and throughout the world; on the final in Moscow in 2009, 19 of the 25 songs were sung in English. Many scholars in southern European countries, mainly France, Portugal, Spain and Italy argue that this fact represents a clear subversiveness of traditional and popular European music. The French deputy François-Michel Gonnot have already criticized the French television and launched an official complaint on the French Parliament[60][61]. On the other side, participants argue that pop style, and singing in English is more appealing and brings more votes from other participants. Nordic countries used this argument with success, as Sweden, Norway and Finland have already won at least one time the ESC singing in English." 95.93.234.32 ( talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I changed on the topic "Language in the ESC" the term freedom by the term allowance. It seemed a subliminal violation of WP:NPOV 95.93.234.32 ( talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Dealing with criticism and controversy for some discussion about this issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, i'm making a list of ESC songs by order of presentation in the whole ESC history, but i don't know who to count from 2004 :S It's first the semi-final in order and after the countries automatly qualified for the final, for the appearence order? can someone help me with this, thanks João P. M. Lima ( talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me give an example:
Until 2003
From 2004
order in the final: S, Q, Y, A1, N, G1, G, J1, P, F1
So, when we make a list with to know wicth entrie correspond to a number of acting in geral ESC story, do we make like this:
1º B 2º A 3º E 4º D 5º C
6º Z 7º H 8º J 9º L 10º M 11º K 12º W 13º O
14º S 15º X 16º Y 17º R 18º N 19º V 20º G 21º F 22º P 23º I 24º Q 25º A1 26º G1 27º J1 28º F1
Can someone helpe me on this? is realy important thank you João P. M. Lima ( talk) 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
i've made this for JESC, but there is not a semi-final, for the ESC, i only know how to do it until 2003, and this is very simple and easy to do. The tables that are in the articles are what is needed to do, the only work is change the acting order, to the number of the entry, and nothing more João P. M. Lima ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think we need to establish the correct name for this country here. I want to say - for the firm record - that I am English, and I have no links or particular affiliation or personal bias for or against either Greece or the nation of Macedonia. Personally, I really could not care less who "wins" the naming dispute: however, it is necessary that I make this clear statement in order that anyone who reads this knows where I stand.
My personal loyalty is, however, firmly with the Eurovision Song Contest itself. And since the ESC is run by the European Broadcasting Union, I propose that we follow the ESC/EBU conventions regarding the naming of Eurovision articles related to Macedonia - and indeed, when referring to that country in the text of the main article and of sub-articles. (You will note that I am referring to the country simply as "Macedonia" here. However, any Greek people reading this should not take that as an insult - I merely use the term in my own casual speech because it is the shortest way to say it.)
The EBU's method of referring to the country in question is as FYR Macedonia.
You can see it here on this official Eurovision website's list of 2010 participants here - and a sub-page specifically about that country here. The sub-page includes full-stops after the letters F, Y and R respectively. Also take a look at the EBU's website, where it lists active members of the union here. The country is listed in alphabetical place alongside "M" - and the broadcaster (MKRTV) is labelled as being of the "FYR of Macedonia".
While I am fully cognisant of the Macedonia naming dispute, it appears to me that the best way we should handle it is to compromise: we should not use the full "Former Yogoslav Republic of" name; and we also should not simply call it "Macedonia". It works out very well that this is exactly the same compromise that the EBU use on the official Eurovison website.
Therefore I propose three things. Firstly, that the country should be referred to as FYR Macedonia in all the Eurovision-related articles on Wikipedia. Secondly, that we keep an eye on the EBU's naming policy. And if the EBU ever decide to start calling the country by another name, then we can follow suit. Thirdly, if any Greek or Macedonian people complain about the name that we use here, we shall simply refer them to the EBU's usage, and tell them that if they wish to call the country something else then they should write to the EBU - and we will go with whatever they use.
Any thoughts? EuroSong talk 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This may interest some of you. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Udo Jürgens, may have been been overlooked because of a slight german bias. Nicole had exactly ONE hit, then retired and is in the section, whereas Jürgens has sold 100 million records and isn't. -- Snottily ( talk) 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Countries with large populations of non-nationals may have their televote influenced considerably. This has been cited as the reason for apparent bloc voting in the Balkan countries of the former Yugoslavia.[91]
This is full-blown crazy. What does "non-nationals" mean? These countries have similar cultures and speak the same languages. The stars in Croatia are popular in Serbia and vice versa. People are nationals of their countries in the largest proportion in each of those countries (there are some refugees in each of those countries, but that doesn't really explain why Croatia would always give the highest no. .of pts to Serbia, or Macedonia to Serbia, where there was no conflict to speak of). For example, I'm a Bosnian Serb and me voting for a Croatian or a Serbian song is not unusual. But I'm not a Bosnian non-national. I have the passport of BiH, and my family has never lived in Serbia in history. It's really about mutual intelligibility -- which is why Scandinavian bloc votes for each other all the time. It's the language and sensibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.121.160 ( talk)
As a "Scandinavian (technically, very little of Finland is part of Scandinavia, we use the term "the North", or Nordic), I know things are a little more complicated than just one big bloc voting. To some extent, the bloc voting comes from shared style and association with other countries' writers and musicians (like Denmark's entry in 2010 being written for Sweden originally), shared language (many Swedish speaking Finns, similarity between Finnish and Estonian, similarity between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, (can't speak for Icelandic and the L's)). On the other hand, bloc voting is only a problem when other blocs do it. ;) I know I didn't have a member of my bloc in my personal top 3 this year tho, and I'm hardly the only one. Would be interesting to know the exact results of the televote vs the juries' votes. 91.153.238.155 ( talk) 12:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
"Also the use of low cut tops and short skirts to attract a higher male vote an example would be Armenia's entry for 2010, Eva Rivas.[86]" This needs editing to remove the reference to Armenia. Although the reference [86] may comment on these issues, the Armenian singer wore trousers, and her top could not be described as "low cut". Perhaps another, appropriate, example could be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There were lots of far more fitting examples in this year's competition, and Rivas' outfit was a far cry from the tops and skirts seen in other contestants' outfits (or lack thereof). Seems like someone doesn't like Armenia. 91.153.238.155 ( talk) 12:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to say Germany hasn't yet won, just because Nicole's victory was for West Germany and not re-unified Germany. It's the same state, still called Federal Republic of Germany. In 1990, the GDR ceased to exist, and the territory then joined the Federal Republic. No new state was founded at all. So this should be changed. Rudefuss ( talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion regarding scoreboard tables at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010#Scoreboard tables. -- 78.34.238.130 ( talk) 15:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have asked this question before, and did not get a response. The German wikipedia says that the prize does NOT go to the performer, but rather to the COMPOSER of the winning song. This is an important detail, which needs to be mentioned in this article, if it is correct. -- 345Kai ( talk) 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does Eurovision redirect here, rather than the disambiguation page? Eurovision (the Eurovision Network) is a valuable, enriching and productive collaboration between national broadcasting unions, whereas the Eurovision Song Contest is a load of.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie pearce ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As the song is called the winning song, and the trophy is given to the songwriters, I wonder who actually can be called winner of the annual Eurovision Song Contest? Regularly, the performers are said to have "won" it. So what about the songwriters? And what about the countries? Are all of them the winners, or is there some popular belief involved? Where are the exact rules and definitions? Where is the official declaration of the Eurovision Song Contest stating for example that Lena Meyer-Landrut (and nobody else) has won the recent edition? It's really amazing that the official webpage ( http://www.eurovision.tv/page/home) isn't helpful at all, and doesn't bother to answer this key question. And it's equally amazing that the fans of this event don't bother to ask. And if the fans don't ask, aren't there any experts on this field? -- Catgut ( talk) 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone is kind please allow me a question. Why is the flag of Andorra different in this article and another flag is in the article on Andorra country ? Andorra has a red flag, yet in this article its flag may confuse as it falsly resembles to the flags of the Democratic Republic of Moldavia and to the Republic of Romania. 188.25.107.55 ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In Countries (Under Winners), in the picture on the right, Croatia has failed to have been credited, despite winning the Eurovision while under Yugoslavia. In 1989, Riva won the competition with "Rock Me". Riva is a band from Zadar (which is Croatian), where all the members are born in the territory of Croatia. The 1990 competition was hosted in Croatian territory (Zagreb, Lisinski Hall) so it makes sense that Croatia be credited with the 1989 victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIOC1 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Winners" next to the sub-section "Countries" there is a map that states that Germany has won once, as of 2010. Could somebody change it please? -- Ajitirj ( talk) 15:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It will come as a surprise to Germans to hear their country hasn't won the contest twice (and to everyone else who will be referring to Germany's two wins in the run-up to the Dusseldorf contest). As the previous person has correctly pointed out the same international legal entity won the 1982 and 2010 contests. The official name of the country that won in 1982 was the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). The name of the country that won the 2010 contest was exactly the same...as was the flag it won under. The EBU scoreboard at the 1982 contest said 'Germany', not 'West Germany' (I'm looking at it now on DVD) as the 2010 scoreboard also said. How can it be argued that these are two different countries? There is no such country as 'the reunified Germany' and in 1982 the country's proper name wasn't 'West Germany'. All that changed between 1982 and 2010 was that this country expanded its territory. If Greenland or the Faroe Islands one day declares independence from Denmark will that mean a Danish win thereafter won't count as a victory by 'Denmark' because its borders changed? Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if there has ever been a short-term cancellation or replacement e.g. due to acute illness of an artist. According to the article, the song details have to be finalised a few weeks before the finale, but does this definitely exclude a "B option" if a singer (or the manager) has to cancel his or her participation e.g. a few days before the finale due to unexpected facts through no fault of his/her own (e.g. acute sickness, accident, maybe even death or becoming victim of a crime etc.)? Are there any exception rules for this case? Has anything like this ever happened to a participant of the ESC?-- SiriusB ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am originally from the UK and there everyone knows the contest, but it is typically seen as quite camp/kitsch, harmless entertainment but not something to be taken very seriously. People generally assume it will feature a lot of bad singing and amusing costumes and some dodgy voting tactics etc. It was (not sure now) traditionally presented by Terry Wogan, in a pretty jokey, lightweight kind of way [OK, I just checked, it's being presented by Graham Norton this year, that says it all]. The nearest the article comes to this is to say it is sometimes accused of featuring too much middle of the road "bubblegum pop". I think some indication of how it is viewed by participating countries would be interesting - I mean perhaps in some it is seen as an important cultural event and it is a serious matter of national pride to send the best possible act and to do well, whereas in, say the UK, it is generally seen as a bit of a laugh. Orlando098 ( talk) 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it a company? A non-profit? How is it funded? How is it organised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.221.155 ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the Irish dance show Riverdance and dancer and choreographer Michael Flatley should be included in this section. They did not participate in the Contest (1994). They were 'only' the intermission act. But they're definitely among the biggest ESC winnres of all times ... -- 93.193.211.164 ( talk) 01:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that greenland should be green,as it's a part of Denmark —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazorakosRazor ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems as if from the Eurovision Articles I've read through not much information is provided about the design, concept, technology and layouts of the Eurovision stages as they change over the years, is there potential for this to be included in either the Main ESC Article or the individual years' articles? Seems like it's a chunk of information that is missing... 220.253.234.1 ( talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Even http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/broadcast/plans/st61/index.html bothered about including meridian 40° East and parallel 30° North. So link them. HTML2011 ( talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
A user removed updated definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest&diff=474866515&oldid=474864540 and claimed the edits were vandalism.
I think removing the updates is closer to vandalism.
Also some on of the older links did not provide the information it claimed to, since the external website didn't had that info under that URL anymore.
What is the Wikipedia policy here? Keeping wrong links or having updated links? HTML2011 ( talk) 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision of this discussion. CT Cooper · talk 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
CT Cooper for the invitation to engage in this content dispute debate. I shall try to point out, as clear as possible, why I feel linking map coordinates on this article, as was done by
HTML2011, is unnecessary. As we know, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic and full of encyclopaedic information for people doing research for one thing or another. Linking the exact location of longitude and latitude into an article of this nature would be a strange thing to do, as the European Broadcasting Area (EBA) isn't exactly accurate anyway, and linking those coordinate would be misleading information to researchers.
HTML2011, stated that
this website have the map coordinates hyperlinked. However, upon inspecting the site, I couldn't see any hyperlinks on the coordinates, and therefore found the statement to be false and invalid. Also it may be worth noting that the coordinates and map image shown on that website appear to be outdated itself. The map doesn't include countries such as Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, which are in the EBA. This again enhances the fact that the cite quoted is out-of-date and falsifying an article that needs to be as near-accurate as possible.
To incorporate hyperlinks to direct users to exact pages for the respective coordinates, don't serve any purpose that wouldn't be served by a
piped link, whereas linking specific details inking words such as Meridian and latitude would serve more of a purpose to a person doing research, as those links would direct them to the respective articles on Meridian (longitude) and latitude. If this article was on a geographic scale, such as an article on a place (country, city, or town) then I wholeheartedly would agree to hyperlinking map coordinates - but as it isn't a geographic article, then I see no point in directing a researcher to irrelevant pages for map coordinates. I sincerely hope this explains my reasoning clear enough. And I'd like to take this opportunity also, to apologise to
HTML2011 for incorrectly flagging a revert as vandalism. As I had stated to
CT Cooper, I was under the impression that if a user re-added details without seeking reason as to why they had been removed, constituted as vandalism. I now know that this is incorrect, and offer my sincere apologies.
Wesley
☀
Mouse 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm maintaining neutrality in this discussion, however I must point out that HTML2011 ( talk · contribs) had expressed the view just before the article was protected that the relevant content should be removed entirely for the reasons stated in this diff. He appears to be referring to the European Broadcasting Area article. What are other people's view on this? CT Cooper · talk 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I just have been invited: "Your input is needed to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest#The debate. If you don't wish to participate in the discussion any longer, that is fine, though this does make it more likely that the article will not go in the direction you want.". The thing is that I said everything already. My opinion is the EBA details are better kept in the EBA article. The ESC should better not be overloaded with meridians, latitudes etc., esp. since this information then is duplicated and as has been seen here more likely to be outdated. I linked the exact meridians and parallels when I wanted to find out where they run. If a user doesn't want to know, he does not need to follow the links. I don't understand the logic at all that Wesley Mouse wants to link to articles like meridian and latitude, but not the ones that actually delimit the region in question, i.e. the EBA. The meridian 40° East makes the difference why Belarus is in the EBA and Kazakhstan is out, despite both having territory in Europe under any definition. It also explains why Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia are outside the EBA. Thanks to Kosm1fent for mentioning the Russian-Georgian border. But I think all the details are better kept outside the ESC article, since the EBA article does it better job for this. HTML2011 ( talk) 01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
HTML2011 ( talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys. Sorry I haven't been around much recently - I only just checked here to see this dispute in full swing! I don't really want to get too involved, but here's a thought: how about someone create a single map showing exactly the boundaries of the European Broadcasting Area? The description of the boundaries is pretty clear, and is well sourced (as I remember researching it when I wrote it in the main article six years ago!) I always thought that a map showing the precise area would be a good idea - but sadly my graphical skills are lacking. Is anyone up for the task? EuroSong talk 11:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The full protection is due to expire today, and I think it is appropriate to let it expire. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreeing for having a better map at the EBA article. I tried to have lat+lon in one map, but the template failed. So it would be generally nice if the template could draw lat+lon at the same time. and, it additionally the template would accept an alternative map. That could be a CoA map and one could build a ESC map almost just from these things. HTML2011 ( talk) 22:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The following is an excerpt from the "Other" sub-section under the "Rules" section:
This statement contradicts itself, as it says the rules limiting performances to solos or duets lasted until 1970, but then says that starting in 1963, up to three performers were allowed. This should be edited, changing "1970" to "1962".
Also, the number of countries is given for the start of the contest, the 80's, and 1993, but not the current number of countries, which I think is probably the most relevant number, and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.74.84 ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is the original purpose of Eurovision listed here different to the History of the Eurovision Song Contest page and Eurovision official website - here it says it was to unify Europe but both the History of the Eurovision Song Contest page and the official website say it was to test new broadcasting technologies:
"In 1955, the EBU came up with the idea of an international song contest whereby countries, represeted by their respective public broadcasters, would participate in one television show, to be transmitted simultaneously in all represented nations.
This was conceived during a meeting in Monaco in 1955 by Marcel Bezençon, a Frenchman working for the EBU. The competition was based upon the Italian Festival di Sanremo, held for the first time in 1951, and was also seen as a technological experiment in live television: in those days, it was a very ambitious project to join many countries together in a wide-area international network.
Satellite television did not exist yet at that time, and the Eurovision Network comprised a terrestrial microwave network. Le Grand-Prix Eurovision de la Chanson Européenne was born!"
source: http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/the-story
GoddersUK ( talk) 13:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are you using the preconstitutional (dictatorship) Spanish flag? It does not make sense at all. Spanish flag is this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_Spain.svg/20px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png This is the one used in the Spanish version of the Wikipedia Eurovision page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.73.207 ( talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Section: Country making its début entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.73.207 ( talk) 15:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Spanish version of the page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_de_la_Canci%C3%B3n_de_Eurovisi%C3%B3n#Participaci.C3.B3n the constitutional flag is the one being shown in that section of the page. 95.19.73.207 ( talk) 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Since some of Eurovision Song Contest's format was inspired by the San Remo Festival did they have to ask the producers in Italy for their permission? Bleubeatle ( talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this AfD for a Eurovision related article on Suntribe. Users with Eurovision knowledge needed here.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
In the list of scrutineers there is a link to a man called Christian Clausen, but I think it's another person with the same name. If you look af the Danish or the Swedish articles about him, it sais nothing about Eurovision, and nor does the biography from Nordea. There is a picture of him there, and he doesn't at all look like the person who supervised ESC between 1993 and 1995.
There was a Danish tv producer called Christian Clausen who produced som of the national finals in Denmark prior to 1993. I'm not sure it's him, but it seems more likely.
If no one object, I will remove the brackets around "Christian Clausen" in the Voting section. Aejsing ( talk) 01:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
some person had written that the relegation system only lasted until 2001 so i changed it to 2003 to make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 ( talk) 12:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Something that has just occurred to me is that the infobox states that the contest was broadcast in 576i since 1956, now I can't speak for the whole of Europe, but in the UK, 576i didn't start until 1964 when BBC Two launched. BBC1 and ITV were still 405-line until they launched 576i services in 1969. I think this may need to be looked in for accuracy. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Shouldent Kosovo be shaded in light green on the map as it used to be part of Yogoslavia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.72.195 ( talk) 11:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the picture "Cities that have hosted the Eurovision Song Contest". Why is Vienna referred to as Wien, Rome referred to as Roma and Brussels referred to as Bruxelles while Munich is Munich, rather than München, and Naples is Naples, rather than Napoli? In my opinion, they should all be the English form, since this is English Wikipedia, but they should be either one way or the other rather than a mixture. Kapitan110295 ( talk) 04:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, as someone pointed out in the picture's talk page, Northern Ireland should probably be the colour of the rest of the UK, especially since Wales is. Kapitan110295 ( talk) 04:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"In all but five of the years since this rule has been in place, the winning country has hosted the show the following year. The exceptions are:"
The article says there are 5 exceptions and then goes on to name 6 exceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.234.137 ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be good if we created a new page called "Eurovision" or "Eurovision Contests". This page would talk about the whole Eurovision franchise, not just about the annual song contest. This page would be similar to the Olympic Games page. The Olympic Games page explains about all the different Olympic contests; summer, winter and junior. I think there should be a Eurovision page about all the different Eurovision contests. That page would also include the table of host cities bellow. What do you think? :) Karlwhen ( talk) 3:08pm, 18 November 2013 (BST)
The map is wrong, showing Germany not having won twice. And please let's not hear the 'that was West Germany' argument that was soundly defeated on wikipedia at the time of Lena's victory 4 years ago. Germany is Germany... the country in 82 is the same state as it was in 2010 Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
When the word "Contest" is used within this article, in most occurrences it is being used as a short form of "Eurovision Song Contest". For example, if you say "Switzerland won the first Contest", that could really be written "Switzerland won the first Eurovision Song Contest". The only reason why the whole ESC title is not repeated throughout the article is that it would be superfluous and repetitious. Therefore "the Contest" is simply used in order to replace "the ESC". However because it is a short form of "the ESC", it remains a proper noun. Therefore it must be capitalised.
The word should only be written in lower case when talking about "a contest". For example: "The EBU decided to create a contest in which their member countries would participate".
The simple rule is: if you can replace "Contest" in the sentence with "Eurovision Song Contest", then it is a proper name and needs to be capitalised. If you can't replace it as such, then it's just an ordinary word and does not require a capital. EuroSong talk 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Eurovision}}
has used "debut" since
its creation which is probably one reason that "debut" seems to have been favoured in articles that use that infobox. If consensus cannot be reached on this issue, it won't matter too much as it is a trivial matter, but we should at least be being consistent within articles and under
MOS:RETAIN I actually believe "debut" is the established spelling for this article as this style has
been used since 2005. An editor revamping the article does not override the establishment of a particular spelling.This needs attention - as the show develops each year, so do participation rules. NewKingsRoad ( talk) 07:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How can the ESC be "the longest running annual TV song competition" if it is based on the Sanremo Music Festival, an annual TV song competition? Yes I've read the source, but it's contradicted in the very same paragraph. What's going on here?- 79.223.27.221 ( talk) 20:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
|