![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Esctoday.com has been totally erased by hackers who is against the Eurovisions glorification of the Gay community and Gay pride it seems. 12 years of work erased in seconds. I dont know if it has anything to do with the fact that the contest is about a week away and in Azerbaijan. Or if it has any connection to the many threats made against the contest. Im just speculating here, but it is sad too see years of work gone.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just brought this to the attention of a wider community at WP:AN. Wesley ☀ Mouse 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue what Uncle G is on about. Who said anything about not appreciating technicalities? C'est la vie Wesley ☀ Mouse 17:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've found some news sites that are reporting these "hacks" and they are in English, if anyone is still thinking of adding the details to this article. Pinknews and PanArmenian.net have both stated Eurovision.tv was first attacked in April, and then EscToday, Eurovision.az; and eurovisionaz.com were attacked on the same day. Could it really be possible that the EBU's official page has become a victim a second time? Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Update According to this website report Eurovision.tv has been hacked again for a third time this year by the same group of people. Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Tensions with Iran, the latter objecting the contest being held in Baku: [4] [5] [6] Iran recalls envoy to Azerbaijan. Should this be covered in the article? Grand master 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Eurovision.tv has been attacked again, as the website is just a pure white page now, with nothing on it whatsoever. I'll keep you updated if any news developments are published about it. Wesley ☀ Mouse 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Should we mention in the article that Albanian television will not broadcast semifinal 1 live tonight after the very serious bus crash yesterday. 100% jury votes will be used from the country and the semifinal will not be broadcasted at all it seems.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"EBU declined to show the Human Rights Watch video at the workshop about the media rights at Azarbaijan." -> Azerbaijan Can anybody correct this? Regagain ( talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Should it include the Executive supervisor, they seem to appear every year? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead says: "Ten countries from each semi-final will qualify for the final and will be joined by Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom." I can't see anywhere in the text where it explains why those six don't need to qualify, other than a reference (without wikilink or explanation) to there being a "big five". Could some clarity please be added? -- Dweller ( talk) 09:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Greta Salóme Stefánsdóttir has no accent over the e in her first name. i.e., "Gréta" is incorrect (see http://ruv.is/songvakeppni). Could this be corrected in this and all the linked articles? Kingky ( talk) 09:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The provisional dates for the 2013 contest have been released: 14, 16 and 18 May 2013. [7] -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Amnesty International: Azerbaijan: Eurovision is deaf to human rights abuses 22 May 2012. The increased media coverage will be meaningless if it does not persuade Azerbaijan’s diplomatic and business partners to act in defence of freedom of expression. Despite publicly committing to support free expression in Azerbaijan, the EBU has maintained a deathly silence on recent repeated violations of that right Max Tucker Amnesty International’s Azerbaijan campaigner said on 22/05/2012.
Because of the Azeri government’s repressive policies, this years’ Eurovision will happen in the shadow of serious human rights violations (HWR). “Hosting Eurovision means the Azerbaijani government can showcase Baku to thousands of visitors and millions of television viewers,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “However, the event is overshadowed by the illegal evictions, expropriations, and demolitions for hundreds of local residents forced out of their homes.”
NovaSkola in my opinion the removed Criticisms and controversy deserves place in the article [8]. According to guidelines Wikipedia:Five pillars We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. Criticisms was verifiable and the sources are reliable Third-party sources: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In World Report 2012: Azerbaijan HRW say that the EBU should help to ensure freedom of the press, the government should allow peaceful protests, release political prisoners and pay a fair price for the forcibly evicted residents [9]. The Azerbaijani authorities’ illegal expropriation of properties and forcible evictions of dozens of families in four Baku neighborhoods [10]. Based above if you find text biased you may improve it, but not remove it [11].
In my opinion the human rights in Azerbaijan violations should be covered in the article much more in detail. Many are interested in the politics of EBU. The European Broadcasting Union has maintained a deathly silence on recent repeated violations. It needs in my opinion a lot of media attention. Watti Renew ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I note that the paragraphs have been added citing this talk page, although I have to say that I don't see a consensus here for it to be re-added. Previously I didn't have an opinion; I do now: the content is again written in an excessively emotional tone. More problematic though is that the two new paragraphs don't even mention the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest, and certainly aren't talking about the venue, which is supposed to be the topic of that section. So I have to ask, what are they there for? There already is an article titled Human rights in Azerbaijan, so any content like that should be added there as appropriate. We can't include everything there is to know about Azerbaijan, nor cherry pick topics for off-topic coverage because they are believed to be important. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This is insane. What possible justification is there for including a three-paragraph section on the graphic design, and censoring discussion of the human rights issues covered in every major media source in the world? Khazar2 ( talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the word gay appear even once in the article when Iran and Azerbaijan are having a diplomatic row over the contest's image as gay-friendly or gay-promoting even? __ meco ( talk) 07:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering what makes this notable for inclusion, I'm sure it would be just of included bookmakers or betting agencies picks. Afro ( Talk) 12:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I fully support their removal from articles, and agree with Cooper too - a line has to be draw somewhere as to how much information is included in Eurovision-related articles. If we start bombarding articles with lists and tables and hardly any text, then we're not exactly sticking to encyclopaedic rules are we. Keep OGAE winners to the OGAE article. Wesley ☀ Mouse 16:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
An azeri official Ali Hasanov that is a close friend of the Azeri president has criticized Swedens entrant Loreen and the swedish delegation for being too political and has turned to EBU with the matter. Just because Loreen has met up with a few Human rights organizations during her stay in Baku. It is what Swedish media are reporting. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Upon reading this following line "Loreen has met as private person different persons and organizations. She has the right for it. However, it is not correct to try limit human freedom of expression"; I'm starting to wonder if this section on Swedish controversy is purely based on personal biased opinion. The wording of that sentence is most certainly make it look that way. Wesley ☀ Mouse 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the new section about Loreen's meeting should be included in this article really - the details within the paragraph would be more beneficial to Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 and probably also on Loreen article. Both those articles are more a target area for this subject. Wesley ☀ Mouse 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What are the place and points columns for? And why doesn't the table for the final have them?-- 86.178.142.209 ( talk) 21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Some errors in the finals table also. (e.g. Italy awarded 7 points to Romania) 178.167.213.106 ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the webcast of the 2nd semifinal on both Eurovision.tv and Eurovisionlivestream.com failed due to hack attack, probably DDoS one (as neither site responded at the expected time on May 24). Once the references about that come, the related section could be created, including earlier attacks on Esctoday. Brandmeister talk 09:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else that didn't understand the sentence under "Voting during the final"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.160.32 ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
For a while now we have all thought that the tie-break rule was only used if there was a tie for first place. But the EBU have announced today that there was a tie for 10th place in the second semifinal - and they used the tie-break rule to determine who qualified. So based on that, we are now able to clear up the grey area regarding tie-breaks since the introduction of the semi-finals. Under the current rules of the contest; if two or more countries finish on the same number of points anywhere in the overall results, then the song that received votes from the most number of countries is deemed to take the higher position. If that also turned out to be an identical number, then a countback system of the number of 12 points, the 10 points etc would come into consideration. Wesley ☀ Mouse 16:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Spain has already said that if they win, they most likely will not be able to host the next ESC. I take that Greece share the same conclusion. Worthy mention in the article? Jørgen88 ( talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
http://oe3.orf.at/songcontest/stories/545314/ Lukas Plöchl, part of the band "Trackshittaz" that performed for Austria in the First Semi-final will be a co-commentator along with Andi Knoll for the ORF. And also, Stermann & Grissemann won't be commentating on ORF2, but on a second sound-track on ORFeins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.124.177 ( talk) 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The running order and spokespersons are revealed here. [17] -- Ahmetyal ( talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should tag the top of the article with {{ current}} template to show its a live event happening today, and that the article is likely to be busy with editing activity. This might reduce the chances of edit conflicts occurring. Any objections to me adding this? Wesley ☀ Mouse 17:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Just so you are aware. I have nominated tonights event for a mention in the ITN section. Even though I guess it would have been mentioned there anyway.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The name of the country referred as "Macedonia" should be changed to "F.Y.R.O.M." or "FYR of Macedonia" according to the UN resolutions and the policy of the EBU and the ESC.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciberche ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The name of Macedonia must change to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as labelled in the Eurovision contest too.'Bold text' IT IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL TO WRITE AND NAME A COUNTRY WITH A NAME THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY ANYONE. Wikipedia if they want to be fair must not serve the political ambition of a country to name Macedonia as Greece. THERE IS ONLY ONE MACEDONIA AND THIS IS THE HELLENIC. The other name is FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.YOU MUST CORRECT IT IMMEDIATELY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 ( talk) 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
WHY DO YOU PUT THE NAME OF Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia AS Macedonia for the eurovision contest? THe eurovision contest refer to it like that: FYR Macedonia WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? This is very serious!
WHY DO YOU PUT THE NAME OF Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia AS Macedonia for the eurovision contest? THe eurovision contest refer to it like that: FYR Macedonia WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? This is very serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 ( talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't participated in this discussion and I haven't any right to speak and that is my problem! This is the way that wikipedia works and that's why no one takes it seriously anymore...
Learn some history firstly and then speak! THE REAL NAME OF YOUR COUNTRY IS VARDAKSA BUT IF you like it change it to MONKEYDONIA. It is more appropriate for you! You are completely uneducated! Read the letter of 200 Classical Scholars from around the world to Obama. Well you must get over it and do your homework! http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html I HAVEN'T SEEN IN THE WIKIPEDIA ANYTHING ABOUT THIS! END OF DISCUSSION... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 ( talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The ancient (Greek) Macedonia and the (former Yugoslavia) Macedonia have nothing in common, except for the name. One was an ancient hellenic kingdom, the other is a present-day republic (using a slavic language). The only common thing is the name. The Greek provice of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia are located in the geographical/historic region of Macedonia, which extends to south-western Bulgaria. Also, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia now is know as Republic of Macedonia, so there is no way to get the two confused. It is like comparing the Polish provinces of Upper and Lower Silesia with the historical region of Silesia which extend from North Eastern Czech Republic to parts Eastern Germany. Norum 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you know that they already exist maps that include the Hellenic province of Macedonia as part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? So do not tell me that there is no matter of confusion!
This misuse clearly implies unhealthy territorial aspirations. The same motivation is to be seen in school maps that show the pseudo-greater Macedonia, stretching from Skopje to Mt. Olympus and labeled in Slavic. The same map and its claims are in calendars, bumper stickers, bank notes, etc., that have been circulating in the new state ever since it declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
They hold the view that by renaming a potato to apple, the potato will then taste like an apple. In other words, they think that by renaming a country's name from 'Vardaska' to 'Macedonia', in the mid 20th century, they can include in its identity, all Macedonian history that took place even as far as 2000 years before the name change.
I cannot blame all innocent slavic children that have fallen victim of their educational system and nationalistic propaganda. One cannot blame one, for what he does not know! But I blame all those who are actively involved in any sort of deliberate, organized, intentional attempt towards world history falsification, so as to achieve their own goals and interests.
I include Wikipedia because by naming the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia contributes to all this!
Take a look here: http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html
This is the letter of 200 Classical Scholars from around the world to Obama. Of course you cannot find this in Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.210.177 ( talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the above discussion on human rights, it appears that discussion stalled out over concerns of WP:SYNTH and tone. I'd ask editors to check out these paragraphs to see if they might be more acceptable: [18].
Personally, I consider it insane to refuse to discuss the human rights issues linked to the contest in our main article. These articles have been prominently discussed in dozens of reliable sources--just do a google news search for "Eurovision" "human rights". A contestant has also gotten involved in the issue. If the article has room for three paragraphs on the graphic design (two sources), surely it has room for to mention the human rights context (hundreds of sources). Khazar2 ( talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
For curious editors, here's a list of major news organizations that devote serious discussion to human rights issues with regard to the contest. My proposed addition is only a start; I'd be glad to see more:
-- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Before yourself or any other editors re-add the content, please allow this discussion to conclude. Three times now I have had to remove the content, which from what I gather is exempt of 3RR as it is removing content that is still being discussed. However, the attempt to keep readding the content despite the reasons explained in the edit summary by Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) and Eugen Simion 14 ( talk · contribs) could be perceived as tag-team editing and therefore both users would be in beach of 3RR themselves. Wesley ☀ Mouse 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This information clearly merits inclusion, it's been the main issue in the press for some time now when the contest has been discussed. Not to include it simply reeks of cherry-picking and risks falling afoul of NPOV for presenting only one side of a widely-debated issue. As for 3RR, it does not matter that the content is under discussion, performing four or more reverts within a 24-hour period when the reverts aren't fighting clear-cut vandalism (which these definitely have not been) breaks the 3RR rule and is subject to intervention, simple as. GRAPPLE X 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Khazar2 and Grapple X - the discussions over human rights were all over the place. The German commentator who announced Germany's votes even explicitly wished Azerbaijan to continue its progress towards free voting! This political appeal during the show is unprecedented. Khuft ( talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, some content has been provisionally added. I've followed CT Cooper's good suggestion above for using the "venue" section and merging the two existing bits of content. A Google News search suggests that the human rights angle has gotten about 5 times the attention of the logo design, but the two subsections are about the same size, so I hope there won't be concerns this time that the section is excessively detailed. (Or at least that these concerns will start being applied to the article as a whole, rather than only to the section that editors don't like.) I'm fine with seeing it trimmed down if it's demonstrably less notable than the rest of the article, however. Thanks everybody for your input. Khazar2 ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a song contest, who cares if they violate human rights, have corrupt governments, pollute the environment and eat cute teddy bears for breakfast, it's just a Song Competition. Did we make a fuss about Abba, when Sweden was making legal kiddie and animal porn? No because it's only a Song Competition. 86.148.39.133 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
I would like for article that listed the statistics on placings and a list over the overall placing of the top 5 placing countries of the 50s 60s 70s etc, to be undeleted. I dont remember what the article name was. I never understood why the article was deleted as it is interesting to see how the lists change over the years. I think the article name was something like List of placements/statistic for placings in the Eurovisionn or similar. If someone could undelete that article it would be appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that a singer from Azerbaijan won last year and that is why the contest was being held in that country... why was a singer from an Asian country allowed to take a part in this contest? I mean its name is "Eurovision", not "Asiavision". Norum 02:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that israel would be in, because of the political issues, but Morocco?...but, as you say, the entrance is based on the EBU membership, then it makes more sense. Still, I do not understand how could EBU approve non-European members? Norum 04:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
When you look at the map, only Georgia qualifies to be counted as an European country. Armenia and Azerbaijan...no. Same as Turkey is not an European country. Norum 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the scoreboard. Malta is shown as having given 10 points to both Italy and Serbia but no 5 points. I believe they gave 5 points to Serbia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.150.94 ( talk) 08:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The German 10 points for Serbia are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.133.162 ( talk) 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Sweden gave 8 points to Estonia and 10 points to Serbia. Not 8 points to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.135.185 ( talk) 10:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There is also a mistake in the Irish votes. According to the current scoreboard Ireland gave 10 points to both Germany and Serbia (but no 8 points). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.39.170 ( talk) 15:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The scoreboard is not given in the order of vote being received. This has the side-effect that it becomes harder to correlate it to the table given by the ESC. Reordering the table to order of votes received would also assist in showing the tension of voting development. The current table has a diagonal symmetry for the MxM countries which participated in the final, which doesn't help very much for finding who voted for who which would be the benefit of such ordering. The current order thus fail to provide the benefit it could possibly have, while another ordering may provide a different aspect not covered. I discovered this while cross-checking it for a statistical analysis. Cfmd ( talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take responsibility for errors with the scoreboard (especially for the Final scoreboard). Editing the scoreboards can be tedious and ever-so painful when composing it. I'm just trying to follow the consistent pattern that is used for scoreboards for the entire WikiProject for Eurovision, which is completely different from the format on the Eurovision website. Thanks for being patient though and observant so that we can document accurate scores! Dfizzles ( talk) 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've noticed that you used the name Macedonia for the counrty wich is located in the central Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe and I would like to inform you that this is incorect and I would like you to chande the name into the real one wich is FYROM.Thank you for your time
Ermioni97 ( talk) 09:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You are refering to the country "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as Macedonia.This is a mistake because you are confusing Macedonia (a big ancient region in Greece) with FYROM a country which is one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, from which it declared independence in 1991. -- Mamalinio ( talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
For Eurovision, Wikipedia's community has agreed to use Macedonia, not FYROM. And that's that. The end. doktorb words deeds 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:CT Cooper#ESC 2012. Any explanations on what is going on? CT Cooper · talk 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the tie break rules only used to determine the winner? Other countries (such as Cyprus & Ukraine for example) should have tied placings (theirs being 15th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.65 ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but that was only used because it was necessary to determine who the 10th qualifier would be, they couldn't have allowed 11 countries from the second semi-final to proceed to the final. I'm sure the tie break rule is only used to determine the winner (or indeed, the qualifiers). Other placings are ranked jointly. Last year for example, Romania & Russia finished joint 16th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.65 ( talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Sternman and Grisseman wasen't on ORF2, there comentated on ORF1 on the 2nd audiotrack. View: Zweikanalton -- Bjferstern ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Please think of urgently deleting the pornographic gif that some ignorant put under the references. This kind of gif should be immediately banished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seinistes ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Scoreboards have been added. Please copyedit/adjust figures if needed. Inputing these can be tedious. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfizzles ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Any information regarding human rights/incidents should probably go to a new section titled "Controversies" or "Incidents" rather than sections such as "Location," "Venue," "Spokespersons," etc. Dfizzles ( talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I added a section on Iran-Azerbaijan diplomatic row, as it was Eurovision related, and was covered in major news outlets. Grand master 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
please add them to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 ( talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The contest could also be seen on SVF and KNR1, in Greenland and Faroe Islands as they show it via broadcaster DR1 from Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.250.242 ( talk) 23:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Azeri security officials today claims that 40 people was arrested within hours of the live final. According to the azeris the people arrested had plotted to do some "terrorist attack" inside the Crystal Hall during the live final. One person was killed during the arrests and all 40 of them had tickets for the final. Swedish media reports this today.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Will there be any Split jury/televoting results sections in this years article? Or has those results not been published yet.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As of 5 June 2012, some broadcasters (Germany, Portugal, and Italy) have released information regarding the jury votes. I volunteer to add the sourced information on each participating countries individual ESC 2012 page if there is a consensus that the information is appropriate for the article. Thoughts? Dfizzles ( talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There's something wrong here. How can the split jury/televoting reslults for the 2. semi final and the final of the 2012 contest be from May 2011? Aejsing ( talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The televoting results of Germany and Spain seem to have been reversed on this article recently, with Spain having 125 points and Germany having 45. According to the offical website, Germany still came 6th in the televoting alone. So: Either the results from Eurovision.tv were wrong, or someone has vandalised the article. Aejsing ( talk) 13:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on every Eurovision page is there no descending list with the winner at the top? It's one of the few things most people are probably looking for. Has someone made it their mission not to have one? 82.41.20.28 ( talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone has messed up the final night results on the resultboard. Just to let you know.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This gushing opinion (of Anke Engelke) was in the article as if it were a statement of fact, rather than just the opinion of one source. Is Anke Engelke an expert in human rights, or a human rights activist? No she is not. She is "a German comedian, actress and voice-over actress"! Is the source of the "only commentator to articulately address human rights" claim an expert in human rights, or a human rights activist. No, it is not. So the opinion has no validity and should not be there. Meowy 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That significance is exactly what I said above. Although, really she would be a spokesperson to some degree. The national broadcaster for Germany, selected her to represent the German broadcaster in respect of announcing the points of the German televote - thus making her a "spokesperson" in right, with the "national" terminology in meaning of Germany being the nation she represented. Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Then again, you could technically classify the spokespersons announcing the points, as "Spokesperson for ..." (in this case for Anke would be Spokesperson for NRD/ARD). Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Meowy, I applaud your rewording work on the article. It does improve it very much indeed. I bow my head to you in admiration of that work. Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
On No.4, Lithuania, in the final, in the English Translation Part there is no __ so I say you should put this in. 86.44.213.142 ( talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I was watching the past few ESCs recently and I noticed that Anri Jokhadze, the 2012 representative from Georgia, was a backing vocalist for the 2008 entry from Georgia. Would he be considered as a returning artist? Here is an article from escXtra.com that mentions his involvement. And even though YouTube videos are not preferred references, here is video proof of his involvement so that you can see it for yourself. Dfizzles ( talk) 05:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tomica ( talk · contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, here is the Discussion on article page and project page. Wesley ☀ Mouse 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Any update on what is happening here? Everything seems to have gone quiet for a few days. Discussions regarding the split jury/televoting tables have gone silent, and nobody seems to be making a clear consensus either way about what to do with them. Are we able to continue with the rest of the review in the meantime, then at least we can doing something about this GA. Nothing wrong in us going back to the split table discussion once we've covered the rest of the article. Wesley ☀ Mouse 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I don't see any (;) in the participating countries section either. Although there are some in the returning artists section. Technically the colon acts as a pause within a sentence. It allows the writer to merge smaller-worded sentences together, into one larger sentence. It is like having a full-stop (.) to stipulate an end of a sentence and a comma (,) to stipulate a break in a sentence. They are to indicate to a read (who may be reading it out loud) that they may pause for breath at that stage - that is the way I was taught at secondary school with colons, and when/where they should be used. The number of participating countries is a weird one too. There was 43 confirmed, and all the sources show 43. However, Armenia withdrew their application before the contest began, and therefore the number reduced to 42. There are sources to show Armenia withdrew, but none that read the new number of participants was 42. Wesley ☀ Mouse 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It does appear that the split jury/televoting results are vital and provide evidence into the "50:50 combined results" statement which is also mentioned on the article, adding more verification into the content. As a compromise, the split results have been placed into collapsible tables, and situated next to their respective scoreboards, thus giving the reader the option to view them, whilst also keeping them hidden from view for those who don't wish to view them. Wesley ☀ Mouse 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Second Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk)
I don't particularly like using someone else's review, So I'm going to quickly review the article myself: starting at Location working to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:13, 16 July 2012 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Esctoday.com has been totally erased by hackers who is against the Eurovisions glorification of the Gay community and Gay pride it seems. 12 years of work erased in seconds. I dont know if it has anything to do with the fact that the contest is about a week away and in Azerbaijan. Or if it has any connection to the many threats made against the contest. Im just speculating here, but it is sad too see years of work gone.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just brought this to the attention of a wider community at WP:AN. Wesley ☀ Mouse 12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue what Uncle G is on about. Who said anything about not appreciating technicalities? C'est la vie Wesley ☀ Mouse 17:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've found some news sites that are reporting these "hacks" and they are in English, if anyone is still thinking of adding the details to this article. Pinknews and PanArmenian.net have both stated Eurovision.tv was first attacked in April, and then EscToday, Eurovision.az; and eurovisionaz.com were attacked on the same day. Could it really be possible that the EBU's official page has become a victim a second time? Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Update According to this website report Eurovision.tv has been hacked again for a third time this year by the same group of people. Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Tensions with Iran, the latter objecting the contest being held in Baku: [4] [5] [6] Iran recalls envoy to Azerbaijan. Should this be covered in the article? Grand master 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Eurovision.tv has been attacked again, as the website is just a pure white page now, with nothing on it whatsoever. I'll keep you updated if any news developments are published about it. Wesley ☀ Mouse 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Should we mention in the article that Albanian television will not broadcast semifinal 1 live tonight after the very serious bus crash yesterday. 100% jury votes will be used from the country and the semifinal will not be broadcasted at all it seems.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"EBU declined to show the Human Rights Watch video at the workshop about the media rights at Azarbaijan." -> Azerbaijan Can anybody correct this? Regagain ( talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Should it include the Executive supervisor, they seem to appear every year? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead says: "Ten countries from each semi-final will qualify for the final and will be joined by Azerbaijan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom." I can't see anywhere in the text where it explains why those six don't need to qualify, other than a reference (without wikilink or explanation) to there being a "big five". Could some clarity please be added? -- Dweller ( talk) 09:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Greta Salóme Stefánsdóttir has no accent over the e in her first name. i.e., "Gréta" is incorrect (see http://ruv.is/songvakeppni). Could this be corrected in this and all the linked articles? Kingky ( talk) 09:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The provisional dates for the 2013 contest have been released: 14, 16 and 18 May 2013. [7] -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 12:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Amnesty International: Azerbaijan: Eurovision is deaf to human rights abuses 22 May 2012. The increased media coverage will be meaningless if it does not persuade Azerbaijan’s diplomatic and business partners to act in defence of freedom of expression. Despite publicly committing to support free expression in Azerbaijan, the EBU has maintained a deathly silence on recent repeated violations of that right Max Tucker Amnesty International’s Azerbaijan campaigner said on 22/05/2012.
Because of the Azeri government’s repressive policies, this years’ Eurovision will happen in the shadow of serious human rights violations (HWR). “Hosting Eurovision means the Azerbaijani government can showcase Baku to thousands of visitors and millions of television viewers,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “However, the event is overshadowed by the illegal evictions, expropriations, and demolitions for hundreds of local residents forced out of their homes.”
NovaSkola in my opinion the removed Criticisms and controversy deserves place in the article [8]. According to guidelines Wikipedia:Five pillars We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. Criticisms was verifiable and the sources are reliable Third-party sources: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In World Report 2012: Azerbaijan HRW say that the EBU should help to ensure freedom of the press, the government should allow peaceful protests, release political prisoners and pay a fair price for the forcibly evicted residents [9]. The Azerbaijani authorities’ illegal expropriation of properties and forcible evictions of dozens of families in four Baku neighborhoods [10]. Based above if you find text biased you may improve it, but not remove it [11].
In my opinion the human rights in Azerbaijan violations should be covered in the article much more in detail. Many are interested in the politics of EBU. The European Broadcasting Union has maintained a deathly silence on recent repeated violations. It needs in my opinion a lot of media attention. Watti Renew ( talk) 14:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I note that the paragraphs have been added citing this talk page, although I have to say that I don't see a consensus here for it to be re-added. Previously I didn't have an opinion; I do now: the content is again written in an excessively emotional tone. More problematic though is that the two new paragraphs don't even mention the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest, and certainly aren't talking about the venue, which is supposed to be the topic of that section. So I have to ask, what are they there for? There already is an article titled Human rights in Azerbaijan, so any content like that should be added there as appropriate. We can't include everything there is to know about Azerbaijan, nor cherry pick topics for off-topic coverage because they are believed to be important. CT Cooper · talk 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This is insane. What possible justification is there for including a three-paragraph section on the graphic design, and censoring discussion of the human rights issues covered in every major media source in the world? Khazar2 ( talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the word gay appear even once in the article when Iran and Azerbaijan are having a diplomatic row over the contest's image as gay-friendly or gay-promoting even? __ meco ( talk) 07:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering what makes this notable for inclusion, I'm sure it would be just of included bookmakers or betting agencies picks. Afro ( Talk) 12:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I fully support their removal from articles, and agree with Cooper too - a line has to be draw somewhere as to how much information is included in Eurovision-related articles. If we start bombarding articles with lists and tables and hardly any text, then we're not exactly sticking to encyclopaedic rules are we. Keep OGAE winners to the OGAE article. Wesley ☀ Mouse 16:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
An azeri official Ali Hasanov that is a close friend of the Azeri president has criticized Swedens entrant Loreen and the swedish delegation for being too political and has turned to EBU with the matter. Just because Loreen has met up with a few Human rights organizations during her stay in Baku. It is what Swedish media are reporting. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Upon reading this following line "Loreen has met as private person different persons and organizations. She has the right for it. However, it is not correct to try limit human freedom of expression"; I'm starting to wonder if this section on Swedish controversy is purely based on personal biased opinion. The wording of that sentence is most certainly make it look that way. Wesley ☀ Mouse 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the new section about Loreen's meeting should be included in this article really - the details within the paragraph would be more beneficial to Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 and probably also on Loreen article. Both those articles are more a target area for this subject. Wesley ☀ Mouse 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What are the place and points columns for? And why doesn't the table for the final have them?-- 86.178.142.209 ( talk) 21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Some errors in the finals table also. (e.g. Italy awarded 7 points to Romania) 178.167.213.106 ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the webcast of the 2nd semifinal on both Eurovision.tv and Eurovisionlivestream.com failed due to hack attack, probably DDoS one (as neither site responded at the expected time on May 24). Once the references about that come, the related section could be created, including earlier attacks on Esctoday. Brandmeister talk 09:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else that didn't understand the sentence under "Voting during the final"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.160.32 ( talk) 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
For a while now we have all thought that the tie-break rule was only used if there was a tie for first place. But the EBU have announced today that there was a tie for 10th place in the second semifinal - and they used the tie-break rule to determine who qualified. So based on that, we are now able to clear up the grey area regarding tie-breaks since the introduction of the semi-finals. Under the current rules of the contest; if two or more countries finish on the same number of points anywhere in the overall results, then the song that received votes from the most number of countries is deemed to take the higher position. If that also turned out to be an identical number, then a countback system of the number of 12 points, the 10 points etc would come into consideration. Wesley ☀ Mouse 16:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Spain has already said that if they win, they most likely will not be able to host the next ESC. I take that Greece share the same conclusion. Worthy mention in the article? Jørgen88 ( talk) 18:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
http://oe3.orf.at/songcontest/stories/545314/ Lukas Plöchl, part of the band "Trackshittaz" that performed for Austria in the First Semi-final will be a co-commentator along with Andi Knoll for the ORF. And also, Stermann & Grissemann won't be commentating on ORF2, but on a second sound-track on ORFeins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.124.177 ( talk) 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The running order and spokespersons are revealed here. [17] -- Ahmetyal ( talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should tag the top of the article with {{ current}} template to show its a live event happening today, and that the article is likely to be busy with editing activity. This might reduce the chances of edit conflicts occurring. Any objections to me adding this? Wesley ☀ Mouse 17:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Just so you are aware. I have nominated tonights event for a mention in the ITN section. Even though I guess it would have been mentioned there anyway.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The name of the country referred as "Macedonia" should be changed to "F.Y.R.O.M." or "FYR of Macedonia" according to the UN resolutions and the policy of the EBU and the ESC.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciberche ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The name of Macedonia must change to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as labelled in the Eurovision contest too.'Bold text' IT IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL TO WRITE AND NAME A COUNTRY WITH A NAME THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY ANYONE. Wikipedia if they want to be fair must not serve the political ambition of a country to name Macedonia as Greece. THERE IS ONLY ONE MACEDONIA AND THIS IS THE HELLENIC. The other name is FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.YOU MUST CORRECT IT IMMEDIATELY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 ( talk) 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
WHY DO YOU PUT THE NAME OF Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia AS Macedonia for the eurovision contest? THe eurovision contest refer to it like that: FYR Macedonia WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? This is very serious!
WHY DO YOU PUT THE NAME OF Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia AS Macedonia for the eurovision contest? THe eurovision contest refer to it like that: FYR Macedonia WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? This is very serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 ( talk) 22:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't participated in this discussion and I haven't any right to speak and that is my problem! This is the way that wikipedia works and that's why no one takes it seriously anymore...
Learn some history firstly and then speak! THE REAL NAME OF YOUR COUNTRY IS VARDAKSA BUT IF you like it change it to MONKEYDONIA. It is more appropriate for you! You are completely uneducated! Read the letter of 200 Classical Scholars from around the world to Obama. Well you must get over it and do your homework! http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html I HAVEN'T SEEN IN THE WIKIPEDIA ANYTHING ABOUT THIS! END OF DISCUSSION... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.90.144 ( talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The ancient (Greek) Macedonia and the (former Yugoslavia) Macedonia have nothing in common, except for the name. One was an ancient hellenic kingdom, the other is a present-day republic (using a slavic language). The only common thing is the name. The Greek provice of Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia are located in the geographical/historic region of Macedonia, which extends to south-western Bulgaria. Also, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia now is know as Republic of Macedonia, so there is no way to get the two confused. It is like comparing the Polish provinces of Upper and Lower Silesia with the historical region of Silesia which extend from North Eastern Czech Republic to parts Eastern Germany. Norum 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you know that they already exist maps that include the Hellenic province of Macedonia as part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? So do not tell me that there is no matter of confusion!
This misuse clearly implies unhealthy territorial aspirations. The same motivation is to be seen in school maps that show the pseudo-greater Macedonia, stretching from Skopje to Mt. Olympus and labeled in Slavic. The same map and its claims are in calendars, bumper stickers, bank notes, etc., that have been circulating in the new state ever since it declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
They hold the view that by renaming a potato to apple, the potato will then taste like an apple. In other words, they think that by renaming a country's name from 'Vardaska' to 'Macedonia', in the mid 20th century, they can include in its identity, all Macedonian history that took place even as far as 2000 years before the name change.
I cannot blame all innocent slavic children that have fallen victim of their educational system and nationalistic propaganda. One cannot blame one, for what he does not know! But I blame all those who are actively involved in any sort of deliberate, organized, intentional attempt towards world history falsification, so as to achieve their own goals and interests.
I include Wikipedia because by naming the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia contributes to all this!
Take a look here: http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html
This is the letter of 200 Classical Scholars from around the world to Obama. Of course you cannot find this in Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.210.177 ( talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the above discussion on human rights, it appears that discussion stalled out over concerns of WP:SYNTH and tone. I'd ask editors to check out these paragraphs to see if they might be more acceptable: [18].
Personally, I consider it insane to refuse to discuss the human rights issues linked to the contest in our main article. These articles have been prominently discussed in dozens of reliable sources--just do a google news search for "Eurovision" "human rights". A contestant has also gotten involved in the issue. If the article has room for three paragraphs on the graphic design (two sources), surely it has room for to mention the human rights context (hundreds of sources). Khazar2 ( talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
For curious editors, here's a list of major news organizations that devote serious discussion to human rights issues with regard to the contest. My proposed addition is only a start; I'd be glad to see more:
-- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Before yourself or any other editors re-add the content, please allow this discussion to conclude. Three times now I have had to remove the content, which from what I gather is exempt of 3RR as it is removing content that is still being discussed. However, the attempt to keep readding the content despite the reasons explained in the edit summary by Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) and Eugen Simion 14 ( talk · contribs) could be perceived as tag-team editing and therefore both users would be in beach of 3RR themselves. Wesley ☀ Mouse 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This information clearly merits inclusion, it's been the main issue in the press for some time now when the contest has been discussed. Not to include it simply reeks of cherry-picking and risks falling afoul of NPOV for presenting only one side of a widely-debated issue. As for 3RR, it does not matter that the content is under discussion, performing four or more reverts within a 24-hour period when the reverts aren't fighting clear-cut vandalism (which these definitely have not been) breaks the 3RR rule and is subject to intervention, simple as. GRAPPLE X 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Khazar2 and Grapple X - the discussions over human rights were all over the place. The German commentator who announced Germany's votes even explicitly wished Azerbaijan to continue its progress towards free voting! This political appeal during the show is unprecedented. Khuft ( talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, some content has been provisionally added. I've followed CT Cooper's good suggestion above for using the "venue" section and merging the two existing bits of content. A Google News search suggests that the human rights angle has gotten about 5 times the attention of the logo design, but the two subsections are about the same size, so I hope there won't be concerns this time that the section is excessively detailed. (Or at least that these concerns will start being applied to the article as a whole, rather than only to the section that editors don't like.) I'm fine with seeing it trimmed down if it's demonstrably less notable than the rest of the article, however. Thanks everybody for your input. Khazar2 ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a song contest, who cares if they violate human rights, have corrupt governments, pollute the environment and eat cute teddy bears for breakfast, it's just a Song Competition. Did we make a fuss about Abba, when Sweden was making legal kiddie and animal porn? No because it's only a Song Competition. 86.148.39.133 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
I would like for article that listed the statistics on placings and a list over the overall placing of the top 5 placing countries of the 50s 60s 70s etc, to be undeleted. I dont remember what the article name was. I never understood why the article was deleted as it is interesting to see how the lists change over the years. I think the article name was something like List of placements/statistic for placings in the Eurovisionn or similar. If someone could undelete that article it would be appreciated.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that a singer from Azerbaijan won last year and that is why the contest was being held in that country... why was a singer from an Asian country allowed to take a part in this contest? I mean its name is "Eurovision", not "Asiavision". Norum 02:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that israel would be in, because of the political issues, but Morocco?...but, as you say, the entrance is based on the EBU membership, then it makes more sense. Still, I do not understand how could EBU approve non-European members? Norum 04:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
When you look at the map, only Georgia qualifies to be counted as an European country. Armenia and Azerbaijan...no. Same as Turkey is not an European country. Norum 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the scoreboard. Malta is shown as having given 10 points to both Italy and Serbia but no 5 points. I believe they gave 5 points to Serbia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.150.94 ( talk) 08:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The German 10 points for Serbia are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.133.162 ( talk) 10:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Sweden gave 8 points to Estonia and 10 points to Serbia. Not 8 points to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.135.185 ( talk) 10:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There is also a mistake in the Irish votes. According to the current scoreboard Ireland gave 10 points to both Germany and Serbia (but no 8 points). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.39.170 ( talk) 15:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The scoreboard is not given in the order of vote being received. This has the side-effect that it becomes harder to correlate it to the table given by the ESC. Reordering the table to order of votes received would also assist in showing the tension of voting development. The current table has a diagonal symmetry for the MxM countries which participated in the final, which doesn't help very much for finding who voted for who which would be the benefit of such ordering. The current order thus fail to provide the benefit it could possibly have, while another ordering may provide a different aspect not covered. I discovered this while cross-checking it for a statistical analysis. Cfmd ( talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take responsibility for errors with the scoreboard (especially for the Final scoreboard). Editing the scoreboards can be tedious and ever-so painful when composing it. I'm just trying to follow the consistent pattern that is used for scoreboards for the entire WikiProject for Eurovision, which is completely different from the format on the Eurovision website. Thanks for being patient though and observant so that we can document accurate scores! Dfizzles ( talk) 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've noticed that you used the name Macedonia for the counrty wich is located in the central Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe and I would like to inform you that this is incorect and I would like you to chande the name into the real one wich is FYROM.Thank you for your time
Ermioni97 ( talk) 09:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You are refering to the country "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as Macedonia.This is a mistake because you are confusing Macedonia (a big ancient region in Greece) with FYROM a country which is one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, from which it declared independence in 1991. -- Mamalinio ( talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
For Eurovision, Wikipedia's community has agreed to use Macedonia, not FYROM. And that's that. The end. doktorb words deeds 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:CT Cooper#ESC 2012. Any explanations on what is going on? CT Cooper · talk 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the tie break rules only used to determine the winner? Other countries (such as Cyprus & Ukraine for example) should have tied placings (theirs being 15th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.65 ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but that was only used because it was necessary to determine who the 10th qualifier would be, they couldn't have allowed 11 countries from the second semi-final to proceed to the final. I'm sure the tie break rule is only used to determine the winner (or indeed, the qualifiers). Other placings are ranked jointly. Last year for example, Romania & Russia finished joint 16th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.65 ( talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Sternman and Grisseman wasen't on ORF2, there comentated on ORF1 on the 2nd audiotrack. View: Zweikanalton -- Bjferstern ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Please think of urgently deleting the pornographic gif that some ignorant put under the references. This kind of gif should be immediately banished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seinistes ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Scoreboards have been added. Please copyedit/adjust figures if needed. Inputing these can be tedious. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfizzles ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Any information regarding human rights/incidents should probably go to a new section titled "Controversies" or "Incidents" rather than sections such as "Location," "Venue," "Spokespersons," etc. Dfizzles ( talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I added a section on Iran-Azerbaijan diplomatic row, as it was Eurovision related, and was covered in major news outlets. Grand master 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
please add them to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 ( talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The contest could also be seen on SVF and KNR1, in Greenland and Faroe Islands as they show it via broadcaster DR1 from Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.250.242 ( talk) 23:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Azeri security officials today claims that 40 people was arrested within hours of the live final. According to the azeris the people arrested had plotted to do some "terrorist attack" inside the Crystal Hall during the live final. One person was killed during the arrests and all 40 of them had tickets for the final. Swedish media reports this today.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Will there be any Split jury/televoting results sections in this years article? Or has those results not been published yet.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As of 5 June 2012, some broadcasters (Germany, Portugal, and Italy) have released information regarding the jury votes. I volunteer to add the sourced information on each participating countries individual ESC 2012 page if there is a consensus that the information is appropriate for the article. Thoughts? Dfizzles ( talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There's something wrong here. How can the split jury/televoting reslults for the 2. semi final and the final of the 2012 contest be from May 2011? Aejsing ( talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The televoting results of Germany and Spain seem to have been reversed on this article recently, with Spain having 125 points and Germany having 45. According to the offical website, Germany still came 6th in the televoting alone. So: Either the results from Eurovision.tv were wrong, or someone has vandalised the article. Aejsing ( talk) 13:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on every Eurovision page is there no descending list with the winner at the top? It's one of the few things most people are probably looking for. Has someone made it their mission not to have one? 82.41.20.28 ( talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone has messed up the final night results on the resultboard. Just to let you know.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This gushing opinion (of Anke Engelke) was in the article as if it were a statement of fact, rather than just the opinion of one source. Is Anke Engelke an expert in human rights, or a human rights activist? No she is not. She is "a German comedian, actress and voice-over actress"! Is the source of the "only commentator to articulately address human rights" claim an expert in human rights, or a human rights activist. No, it is not. So the opinion has no validity and should not be there. Meowy 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That significance is exactly what I said above. Although, really she would be a spokesperson to some degree. The national broadcaster for Germany, selected her to represent the German broadcaster in respect of announcing the points of the German televote - thus making her a "spokesperson" in right, with the "national" terminology in meaning of Germany being the nation she represented. Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Then again, you could technically classify the spokespersons announcing the points, as "Spokesperson for ..." (in this case for Anke would be Spokesperson for NRD/ARD). Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Meowy, I applaud your rewording work on the article. It does improve it very much indeed. I bow my head to you in admiration of that work. Wesley ☀ Mouse 00:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
On No.4, Lithuania, in the final, in the English Translation Part there is no __ so I say you should put this in. 86.44.213.142 ( talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I was watching the past few ESCs recently and I noticed that Anri Jokhadze, the 2012 representative from Georgia, was a backing vocalist for the 2008 entry from Georgia. Would he be considered as a returning artist? Here is an article from escXtra.com that mentions his involvement. And even though YouTube videos are not preferred references, here is video proof of his involvement so that you can see it for yourself. Dfizzles ( talk) 05:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tomica ( talk · contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, here is the Discussion on article page and project page. Wesley ☀ Mouse 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Any update on what is happening here? Everything seems to have gone quiet for a few days. Discussions regarding the split jury/televoting tables have gone silent, and nobody seems to be making a clear consensus either way about what to do with them. Are we able to continue with the rest of the review in the meantime, then at least we can doing something about this GA. Nothing wrong in us going back to the split table discussion once we've covered the rest of the article. Wesley ☀ Mouse 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I don't see any (;) in the participating countries section either. Although there are some in the returning artists section. Technically the colon acts as a pause within a sentence. It allows the writer to merge smaller-worded sentences together, into one larger sentence. It is like having a full-stop (.) to stipulate an end of a sentence and a comma (,) to stipulate a break in a sentence. They are to indicate to a read (who may be reading it out loud) that they may pause for breath at that stage - that is the way I was taught at secondary school with colons, and when/where they should be used. The number of participating countries is a weird one too. There was 43 confirmed, and all the sources show 43. However, Armenia withdrew their application before the contest began, and therefore the number reduced to 42. There are sources to show Armenia withdrew, but none that read the new number of participants was 42. Wesley ☀ Mouse 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It does appear that the split jury/televoting results are vital and provide evidence into the "50:50 combined results" statement which is also mentioned on the article, adding more verification into the content. As a compromise, the split results have been placed into collapsible tables, and situated next to their respective scoreboards, thus giving the reader the option to view them, whilst also keeping them hidden from view for those who don't wish to view them. Wesley ☀ Mouse 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Second Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk)
I don't particularly like using someone else's review, So I'm going to quickly review the article myself: starting at Location working to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)