Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008/Archive 5

Logos
Out of curiousity, why has the coat of arms not been included in the Serbian flag in any of the logos? Is it because it's too detailed to work on-screen/in print? (I'm talking about the official logos, not just the ones here). Martin Leng (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about logos, could we use as the article header instead? The current logo is no longer accurate as it has been "refined" by RTS to the one I have uploaded. Martin Leng (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the one on the page should stay, it's a PNG format and it is from eurovision.tv the main organisers of the contest. Your image if I remember comes from the TV broadcast. I am also curious why the CoA is not on the flag, the one in use now has been modified and the CoA is no longer there, but that red is wrong. -- AxG  @   ► talk  21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My image is also from eurovision.tv, on this page. Note how the design of the official site has changed to include parts of this logo (you can tell as the liquid effect is far more realistic than before). I see your point about the PNG, but other years have far lower quality JPGs and so I feel this is acceptable. Of course that's just my opinion, but I feel all of an article - including images - should be as current and accurate as possible. Martin Leng (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the image needs the Eurovision Heart logo, as this is also the main logo of the contest as well, and I think that the new logo should be uploaded on the main logo on the page, and with transparency, instead of changing the image name on the article. -- AxG  @   ► talk  21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave you guys to act on this as I don't want to cause a rift, so if anyone wants to edit the image to include the heart logo then that would be good. Martin Leng (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stage image
I'm not sure if it's necessary (the current stage image is up for deletion at the moment) but there's a better quality pic of the stage here, which doesn't feature a worryingly large logo in the bottom corner, as the current image does. I think a decent-quality rendering of the stage design is a useful addition, at least until the real thing is built in May.  Chwe ch  22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added it on the article.--Robotico2 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast of ESC in Italy
I have a source about ESC in Italy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.194.3 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll add that to the article now.  Chwe ch  16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why sources on languages?
I don't believe there's a need to confirm in what language a song will be presented, it's never been done before so there's no need to do it now.. Plus the reference to the 2 words in Russian/2 words in Spanish for the Maltese and Belarusian entry respectivelly is also unnecessary. A footnote will be better for them. I'd put it I just don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.135.55 (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Hanne Hoftun as commentator
As I can't seem to find any official statements that she will become Norway's next commentator, I removed her from the list of commentators. - Jetro (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

About the map: To include Kosovo
Since Kosovo declared independence from Serbia last month and it's been recognized by over 30 countries worldwide. Don't you think it's borders outside Serbia should be draw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs)


 * The situation regarding Kosovo is still in quite a state of flux, and until the situation becomes a little clearer I think any change to the map is premature. Kosovo is probably unique in Europe being the only nation not subject to (near) universal recognition, and I perceive this be an unstable situation which will resolve itself over the coming months.
 * In terms of Eurovision specifically will residents of Kosovo be eligible to vote? Have they in previous contests. Does the independence of Kosovo actually have the potential to affect the contest? --Neo (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation in Kosovo doesn't affect the contest at all.. They've been broadcasting the show but they have never voted. I'm just saying it should be included in the map outside of Serbia as a non-participant. It's been recognized by 30+ countries is pending approval from around 10. Israel is not recognized by over 30 countries too. So it shouldn't be included in the map, because of that? They declared independence, the Wikipedia map for Europe includes Kosovo, why not the ESC Map, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.135.55 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right,the Kosovo independence will not have an affect to the contest,except that Albanian entry will probably be boycotted as everyone knows.However if we include Kosovo,then we should also include on the map:Nagorno Karabach,South Ossetia and Abkhazia since they are out of control from their countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosovo was left out of the map per this map at the official Eurovision 2008 site, and although that's not a fantastic reference it's the best official one we have. The point about Israel is moot; if Kosovo was an EBU member state participating in this year's contest they would be on the map, without a doubt. That's not the case, though. Ditto regarding the Europe article: there are several maps there, less than half of which include Kosovo.  Chwe ch  16:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It could also be argued that the map represents the situation at the end of the period of eligability for entry, which is (as I understand it) back in November, and that updating the map would be anachronistic (akin to, for instance, including an independent Ukraine on a pre 1990 map of Eurovision entry). --Neo (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as Kosovo does not participate, the colour on the map should indicate that as well: Right now it seems that Kosovo participates in a semi-final. The colour of Kosovo should therefore be the colour that is used for Austria, Slovakia or Italy. 213.47.219.86 (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually surprised the map doesn't include Kosovo - the Contest is being held in Serbia, and they don't recognise Kosovo has being independent. (Watch the voting tomorrow night - the map that shows Serbia when it's their turn to vote will show Kosovo has being part of Serbia.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

French Controversy
I think that the French Language Choice Controvesy needs to be addressed and put on the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 main page which is like the 1969 Tie breaker controversy which was adressed and i think this needs to be addressed as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamml13 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that was an important part of the contest's history, the French controversy isn't really...--Robotico2 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio Broadcasts
Do we need to write down all the radio broadcasts since I know when i was in my country,Radio Beograd,Radio Sarajevo and Radio Skopje all broadcasted the event?Does EBU make it obligatory for the radio members to broadcast the contest??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk)

Language of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro entries
There seems to be a bit of dispute/slow motion edit war, motley between unregistered users, on the language of the Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro entries. For example, Montenegro's has gone from Serbian -> Montenegrin -> Serbian. Bosnia and Herzegovina's has gone from Serbo-Croation -> Bosnian -> Serbo-Croation. Looking at the article Serbo-Croatian language, this seems to be a controversial, however the changes back and forth are clogging up the edit history, so I would like this to be resolved. Does anybody have any suggestions on what it should say the language is for these entries? Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming that each song is intended to be sung in the native vernacular (i.e. it isn't like France choosing to sing a song in Catalan, in which case Serbian may be the correct term) then the question comes as to whether each represents a language or a dialect. If each is a language, the one should list the common name of the language (i.e. Bosnian, Montenegrin). If they instead represent dialects, then the question can be translated - would we list Provençal or Occitan, or in another case, Valencian or Catalan, then it is a more complicated issue.
 * What I would like to say is that we should list the dialect name, but I'm not sure that I would agree in all cases. I would not wish to attempt to make a determination of the correct course of action in this case. --Neo (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I am not hugely familiar with dialects and languages of Eastern Europe, but I get the impression this is more about the name of the language - with a political dispute occurring on the name. Personally I think using the names local to the entry may be most appropriate, so that would be Bosnian and Montenegrin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bosnian entry is in the Bosnian language.
 * This year's Bosnian performer Elvir Lakovic better known as Laka says so twice himself in an interview in the following video. [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zec (talk • contribs)


 * Just a thought - if the Montenegrin entry is in Serbian, why does the page about the song link to a page which says the lyrics are in Montenegrin? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * it is not official page. Booth languages should be included. Vladar86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC) \


 * When America starts speaking American and Australia Australian and New Zealand New Zealandic then Bosnia can have Bosnian and Montenegro Montenegrin. I recall that you need 80% of a difference in 2 languages for them to be called two languages otherwise they are dialects of a single language which is Serbian. Before the Montenegrin independence they spoke Serbian. Just because they become independent they dont start speaking a different language.


 * The song is in Montenegrin here it says that the Montenegrin song will be performed in their official language. According to the CIA World Factbook found here the official language of Montenegro is Montenegrin. However, if some people will consider it a dialect. Dialects are also permitted to perform in Eurovision as happend with Italy in 1991, Austria in 2002 and Estonia in 2004. So I dont think we should have further discussions on this issue Tony0106 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spokespersons
Guys,can you please tell me whether Linda Martin,Selma,Jonatan and Eva are confirmed as from the broadcasters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Éva Novodomszky for Hungary is confirmed. But there's only Hungarian source so far: http://eschungary.hu/news/2008/belgrad2008_mtv_musor.html The article writes about the commentator (Gábor Gundel Takács-just like last year), spokesperson (Éva) and that Hungary will broadcast only the second semi and only a recap of the first semi will be shown before it. Mb731 (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Spokespersons and commentors
Because, I don't know how ti inform you, the Macedonian Spokesperson for Eurovision Song Contest - Belgrade 2008 is Ognen JaneskiItalic text, a 21 year old Anchorman at the National TV of Macedonia...

A bold IP address has replaced the spokespersons and commentators sections with a table, also removing large amounts of sourced content. Previous consensus (Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2008/Archive_3) was that simple list was better and a section named "Commentators/Spokespersons" section was awkward. So I am reverting this to an agreement is reached here. I for one, prefer a simple list and seperate sections. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I support simple list and seperate sections too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

68.146.135.55 (talk · contribs) appears to have ignored my suggestion to discuss the issue on the talk page and has just decided to re-insert the table against apparent consensus. I have reverted it again per above, though I have tried to avoid overwriting any good faith edits. If this user attempts to insert the table again, I will not revert it again to avoid getting into an edit war. I am going to give this user a clear warning and leave a note in the article of this discussion however. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the previous talk on this subject, I support the separate sections with a list. The table just makes it look messy. Greekboy (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the IP address' edit again. I think that puts him over the 3 RR rule now.  I did not know if I should leave a message on the users page or not. Greekboy (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I have given this user a final warning. Even if s/he adds in a table a forth time (currently the number is three times, with 2 reverts by me, and 1 by you) it is not a technical violation of 3RR as the gap between this users edits is to large. However, this user has been warned enough times and been informed that edit warring is bad, and is clearly one person running against past consensus - so if this user reverts in the table again, I think a block is justified. As I am involved I cannot take any administrative action against this user, so I am going to request assistance from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) who is neutral but knows about this article and myself well. The other option is some kind of page protection, but I don't think that would be appropriate in this case. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I was just writing my message to the The Rambling Man, this happens . Well I will just wait for his response now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that this IP address has now been blocked for 55 hours. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that now everything is well written.All the sources are there,and all the informations are correct.After checking on the internet,and on the forums,I put the Danish and Belarussian spokesperson as they are confirmed by the broadcasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please add Kārlis Streips (LTV) as a commentator from Latvia? Thank you very much. --Ivario (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Chart Positions
I took out the Chart Positions section. It looks a bit messy to me, and also you can find all that info by clicking song titles. I didn't think that the information about chart positions were really that necessary on this main page. Greekboy (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done Greekboy,thats the place where the chart positions should be,and not on the main page.Put all the chart positions on the songs names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been re-added by the same IP address. I am going to take it out again per above and notify the user to come here and discuss it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can also outlast the main page by some length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika2008 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting of ESC in Spain
Here's about the ESC on TVE, spanish broadcaster...

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/11387

--87.6.176.184 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting of ESC in Ukraine
Broadcasting of ESC in Ukraine - UT1 (Ukraine) URL: http://www.1tv.com.ua/euro/eurovision/euronews/ Please add in article.

92.112.44.242 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Page getting too long
So as I was trying to edit the finalists (however somebody do it for me, faster, thank u, lol) I kept receiving messages that the page was getting too long.. Do you guys have any suggestion on how to shorten the page? Why dont you get rid off the commentators and spokepersons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think it's too much of a problem - the message only related to editing and not to reading (as I understand it) and one can edit sections in any case; can't one? Plus the page is not likely to expand too much more is it? --Neil (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think its that bad either, a length message comes up if the page is over 30k in size just to let you know it is getting longer - the article has to get quite a lot longer before as message comes up suggesting you split up the article, try and edit the article United States for example. At present the article is 47k long, according to Article size, article size is not to much a cause a concern unless the page goes over 60k, and division is not absolutely nessasery unless the page goes over 100k. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Off course, it is likely to expand.. There are yet 3 scoreboards to publish and the pictures which are far way more important than the spokepersons/commentators, which for me are incoherent and look very messy with the list (and with the table too). Why can't we get rid off them? How can I make a motion to ask how many people want those sections?


 * A lot of the results will be just additions to the existing tables. The gallery issue is easily solved, just create one of these:

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Eurovision Song Contest 2008  Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the scoreboards? You only put 3 pictures there are 40 to go. Seriously, why don't you guys eliminate the commentators/spokepersons. It is a disasterTony0106 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Scoreboards and what's been added to Eurovision Song Contest 2007 should not have the article exceed 60kb hopefully, which is fine. I am not sure how a generally well sourced section is a "disaster". I strongly disagree with removing it to create huge galleries - a few selected pictures are good, but galleries are primarily covered by the commons project and link is provided; I do not understand how they could be so essential in Wikipedia articles that they should be at the expense of encyclopaedic material. If space is an issue, which is still in itself debatable, I do not think galleries should have priority for inclusion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like a disaster and is not well sourced at all, there are tons of spokepersons with the "citation needed" plus the commentators from Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Israel, Moldova and Ukraine are missing. And how come the commentators and spokepersons are more important than pictures of the singers? I mean if they were the spokepersons of their national jury, as it used to be before 2003, then they should be included but they are just random people announcing the televoting results from a country. Commentators arent part of the show they just comment the show for the people that are watching it in their countries so there are not important at all. I ask for the removal of the commentators/spokepersons sections. Tony0106 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comments below. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Song titles
As per Manual of Style (music), shouldn't we have the song titles in quotation marks ("")? TubularWorld (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well spotted I think they should. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the table, then it seems like overkill (its perfectly clear that they are titles from the context), in the text I agree. --Neil (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Songtitle Translation
The real translation of Zemrën e lamë peng is We put our hearts at stake (which is similar to saying We glambed our hearts) as it appears on the diggiloo website. The translation of the lyrics (as well as the songtitle off course) was done by native Albanian speakers so we can't argue with them. On the other hand, the Turkish title Deli is translated as Insane. Insane could be a synonym of Crazy but just like we have different words for it in English, French and Spanish we can also have them in Turkish. Refer to the diggiloo website: Tony0106 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

San Marino voting system
San Marino RTV announced on tv reports and during the live ESC broadcast that for technical reasons people from San Marino can't televote and in substitution to this there is a specific jury that is exercising San Marino's right to vote. They didn't tell which is this technical reason but there are two possibilities: 1. they want to avoid a flop like Monaco in past years (30,000 inhabitants doesn't mean that there will be 30,000 votes) 2. San Marino's cell phones have the Italian preselection number and this would mean that also Italians could vote (and this is impossible because of the regulation) - and concerning home phones I don't know if there is the possibility to apply a televote number only for San Marino because the Italian and San Marino network are both connected. Don't ask me if both Italy and San Marino would participate what could happen. 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting... feydey (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So that's why they gave the UK some points! :) A jury vote can't be politically rigged... Ireland, of course, is our neighbour. Digifiend (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No pictures of Serbia or Belgrade?
Has anyone ever seen such shit in all their lives? This has to be a first, atleast in recent years. All the hype leading to the event and not one "postcard". Shame on the bastards. Evlekis (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum or discussion board Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

edited by Sjc07 (Talk | contribs) at 01:51, 25 May 2008
Sjc07 changed the image from the Confluence of Sound thing to the image we have now. Did the user ask anyone to make sure if it was okay? I personally think the Confluence logo is better. It's more stylish AND it's not the first ESC page to have the theme on it (ESC 2006). I really would like to see if we should change it back. WestJet (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Graph
Would it be possible to produce a graph showing who which countries gave their points to,similair to the one about the article on last years' eurovision.if so could this be made as i feel this would be a good addition(Harry-fox (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree. Just needs someone who's willing to do all the collating, designing and formatting - not a small job.--86.145.248.219 (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree, this is really interesting information. But do we have a reliable source? (I didn't right all that down yesterday...)84.195.115.163 (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would do it myself but i don't know how to format it in graph form like that Harry-fox (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh here it is : Can't you just click "Edit" on the page of the previous content, to see how they made that graph back thenEvilbu (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go mate,but i'm not promising anything Harry-fox (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on the german wikiepedia. Just copy and paste it then translate to english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meaty Weenies (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Error
There is writen for Serbia for beginners accompanied by Konstantin Kostjukov. its accomanied by Aleksandar Josipovic- Pegasus ( who was master of ceremony for that act ). http://blic.co.yu/zabava.php?id=42736 - on serbian

Gofzamen (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Gofzamen

Broadcast of semi-final in pre-qualified countries
The following sentences in the article implie that Germany and Spain only broadcast the first semi-final and that France, the UK and Serbia only broadcast the second one:


 * The following countries competed in two semi-finals which were broadcast live on Tuesday 20 May and Thursday 22 May 2008. In addition to this, automatic finalists Germany and Spain exercised voting rights and broadcast the first semi-final. France, the United Kingdom and Serbia exercised voting rights and broadcast the second semi-final.

I don't know about the other four, but I know that both semi-finals were broadcast in the UK. I can't really update it without knowing whether both or only one were broadcast in the other four countries. If someone does know, could they fix it to make it clearer. Thanks. TomPhil 11:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

the ex socialist soviet union alliance won again..
why you dont mention that russia (and ucraine) won thanks to the ex soviet union alliance? and its not a personal POV, its an obvious reality.
 * Its delt with in the general Eurovision article under critisisms. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Position map
I recently added an .svg map showing all the countries with which position they came, but it was removed. I've now added the same map back, but as a .png. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)



Here's the scale, if anyone needs it... Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed to this way because I think it looks better in a row than in colummns besides it doesn't take so much space, I believeTony0106 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to do that, but didn't know hot to. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but, though the map is very neat and all, its informative value is almost null to me. Excuse me for being awfully blunt - no offence meant, and I appreciate your effort. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it shows a very simple and important pattern: East is blue, West is red. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quite seeing this pattern, and I think this is borderline OR. You and I know how voting ended up, but this is an encyclopedia and we need some different standards than a ESC fan site. This map doesn't show much more than what the table shows as concerns placing, and the "pattern" can be disputed - if you know what to look for, you can see that, but otherwise, it's pretty unclear, with a lot of shades being used and, except for big blue Russia, not quite evident. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I plotted everything as the data says, so people can make their own minds' up on the patterns and I haven't put any information in the article noting that it is blue in the east and red in the west. I'm trying not to be rude, but I can't understand how you can't notice the pattern. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are trying, I believe in the best of good wills, to unwittingly commit OR via backdoor. As I said, I could agree with you were we commenting in an ESC fan site, and I have my strong views on the subject, but until we find reliable, worthy sources reporting on the phenomenon, we should abstain from putting our observations into the article. For now, the article does not mention the "pattern" (and I guess a long time will pass until a credible source will be found for it, however true and obvious it may be to you and me), so illustrating is premature. This article here is to inform, in a rather dry, emotionaless and extremely boring impartial way on the fact that a Eurovision Song Contest took place, not to allow "people to make their own minds up" (no apostrophy needed). PrinceGloria (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Acutally, I did it because I like making maps. It's not original research, because all the data came from this article. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I do know, but then I reiterate that when the "pattern" argument is taken out, the map is of little informative value beyond what the scoreboard and tables already provide us with (and, may I say, in a more accessible form). I don't think we should include everything just because it exists. I've made a lot of stuff I was really proud of that ultimately weren't of much value to Wikipedia. As I said, if you like making maps, perhaps you could combine both previous maps into one, as I believe it could contain all of the data that both maps currently convey. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people prefer maps, some people prefer charts. I'm sure there's a lot of people reading this article that don't know where all the blakan and baltic countries are. I'll see what I can do on the combination. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Wikilinks? Also, the map doesn't quite show where the Balkans are - you have to know where they are to interpret it regarding to the Balkans. Sure waiting for a combo :D PrinceGloria (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

✅

No it does not, I am afraid:
 * 1) Every map needs a good legend
 * I haven't put a legend on the map, because this map is used across many different language wikipedias. I have, however, put the legend on the file description's page, so that people from other language wikipedias can copy and paste that, then translate it. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't mean to include the above info, as I said - pretty pointless. I meant merging the 1st/2nd semi participation with advancing/not advancing to the final. One could perhaps add countries which did not participate this year, but did in the past, and mark debutants, but certainly not mark every country with a colour according to their place in the final and use the wild yellow for non-participants...
 * Any preference of colour scheme? I was thinking light green for countries who did not qualify in the first semi final; dark green for countries who did not qualify in the second semi final; light orange for countries who qualified in the first semi final and dark orange for countries who qualified in the second semi final. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in semi-final 1 scoreboard
There is an error in the scoreboard for semi-final 1. It says that the Netherlands scored 27 points, but the scores (1, 3, 2, 7 and 3) add up to 16. A ecis Brievenbus 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

bosnia 12 points from serbia
Can somebody add on the list of 12 points given by each country Serbia next to Bosnia, which received 12 points from the former. 11:58pm 25.05.2008
 * Do you mean Montenegro? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

this article
...useless without vids. please revise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.146.186 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eurovision.tv is in the links section, which includes videos. --  [[ axg   ⁞⁞   talk   ]] 14:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when do Wikipedia articles have videos? --WestJet (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Highlight
Why is Poland and Sweden highlighted in Yellow? Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It indicates that the jury picked them to go through to the final. --  [[ axg   ⁞⁞   talk   ]] 14:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noted in the article about the colours used in the table now. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the colour should not be a bright yellow, it should be a more shallow colour because the song qualified only because of jury votes, not by getting enough votes. There isn't anything special to highlight in that. --Pudeo⺮ 10:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestions would be: {{legend|#FFFDD0|Cream (colour)}} {{legend|#EEDC82|Flax (color)}} --  [[ axg   ⁞⁞   talk   ]] 10:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A better choice I'd say, changed it already if no-one minds. --Pudeo⺮ 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of the performances
Are pictures or screencaps of the performances going to be added to this article, like they were for last year? The polish and irish entry already have pictures so i don't see why the others don't. - 92.10.214.188 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're at Eurovision Song Contest 2008 - galleries generally aren't a good idea on Wikipedia; better to select the most useful images and use them instead (I'm not sure why Ireland and Poland were chosen.) The overcomplicated gallery at Eurovision Song Contest 2007 is one of the reasons I tagged it as needing cleanup a few months ago.  Chwe ch  17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The current pictures are candidates for speedy deletion as they provide no source or licence information, and the uploader has not yet come back to provide any. One registred user attempted to remove the unsourced tag through adding a licence - I re-added the speedy deletion candidate tag as there was still no source information so there was no way to verify the accuracy of the licence, and no explanation given on how a non-uploader knows what the licence is. I have reverted an attempt by an unregistered user to mark the image as released into the public domain for similar reasons. Once the source and licence information is given the pictures can be transferred to Commons. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The pictures at Commons are properly sourced and licenced (they're from Flickr). May as well replace the unsourced ones with some from there now.  Chwe ch  13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The 12 points to Germany explanation
Please, help me fight vandals removing info from section "12 points of the final" without explanation, namely that Bulgaria voted for Germany because one of the No Angels singers is Bulgarian. This seems to me to be precisely the section for this information. --V111P (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no source for this statement, that's why it is removed. Also, how can anyone be sure that all Bulgarians who voted for this song did it only because of one singer's origin? AEriksson (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "all Bulgarians who voted for this song" need not have voted "only because of one singer's origin" to make my statement true. Simply because to get 12 points, rather than 10, there is a difference of only that many votes (whatever the number in this particular case is). Also, I found a source - this should be able to count as a source -- it is said almost directly: "Aside from the highest-possible 12 points from Bulgaria - one of No Angels emigrated from that country and now hosts a pop song contest in Bulgaria - Germany ...". --V111P (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, what you are trying to put in is in breach of WP:OR, so it should not be allowed. End of story. 86.136.63.33 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about this link? It suggests that the Bulgarians were force-fed a diet of Germany and that the back-up jury had it nowhere.
 * We can just say that one of the performers was Bulgarian. This says it all anyway. --V111P (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

12 points allocation table
Now that we have the graph showing who each country gave their points to i don't think the table showing who each country gave their 12 points to ,located directly underneath,is worthwile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-fox (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The 12 points table has been in a lot of previous contest pages, and is an easy way of seeing who gave w=hat country 12 pints without seaching through the scoreboard table. Keep it! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't put Serbia in Pot 1
Yes, Serbia would probably fit most with these countries... but it wasn't in the Semi-Final, so it wouldn't be in a Pot!! It was the winner of last year, so it already qualified for the final. AND, if you think the whole pot thing will go to next year and that Serbia will be put in Pot 1, that's no reason to add Serbia to it on this article... you can wait until the 2009 article pops up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.16.30 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphs
Is there any point in having all these graphs under the tales. They're not in any other contest page and I just don't see the point in them. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither, there are two other ways in the article to tell how many points a country got, so I have removed them. --  [[ axg   ⁞⁞   talk   ]] 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I think there is already enough there that gives the score and this is article is getting a little long. They can still be included in the Commons gallery. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting ties
I think u'll find yeah were poland etc are on the same score but still thats JOINT LAST duh!!!
 * Please don't delete my comments, and stop altering the scores, as you clearly have no idea what you are doing Greebowarrior (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me who deleted your comment, but the final position does take into account the number of 12- 10- and 8-pointers awarded as well as just the score 131.111.195.8 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * well, someone did, and they did it with all the grammatical expertise of a dead heron - i wasnt aware of that rule, how does that effect the results? I thought the UK got more higher pointers than Germany (I know Poland got a 12)
 * I'll try and find the rule somewhere, but didn't germany get a 12-pointer as well? 131.111.195.8 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a description of the rules on the main contest page: Eurovision Song Contest. Apparently it's number of countries that gave you points, then numbers of 12's, 10's and so on. (Incidentally, that seems to me to be contradictory - either lots of countries voting for you is good, or countries giving you lots of point is good - you can't have both...) --Tango (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, for all those who do NOT or CAN NOT understand that there are NO TIES IN THE EUROVISION SONG CONTEST. Please refer to the scoreboard as published by eurovision.tv, the official placements are there Tony0106 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the rules and the rule regarding ties is section 5.1 - although it only mentions first place it would be reasonable to assume that this would apply for all positions 131.111.195.8 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, no ties. TerriersFan (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then STOP changing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs)
 * Please STOP making false accusations - at no stage have I altered the rankings. TerriersFan (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * False assumption, I'm afraid. If the tie-break rules were intended to apply to all positions, they would state that. Since they don't, they aren't. The tie-break rule was only introduced because it hadn't been thought about so there were joint winners; the rule as introduced clearly applies only when it's necessary (i.e. to award the trophy or for the last qualifying place in a semi-final). LondonStatto (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This came up with "Flying the Flag (for You)" last year, and while the rules are iffy, the scoreboard definitively positions Latvia, Albania, Poland, the UK lower than the "joint" place. Sceptre (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules do not mention anything to do with ties other than for first position. In my opinion, Wikipedia should not be assuming anything, be it reasonable or not. A reading of the rules does not mention rankings - the seemed to be concerned with the winner only. I suggest a footnote describing the ambiguity. Eurovision's website itself is currently showing the UK as 25th, yet it's table for 2002 shows the UK and Estonia both at third place. http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=316 Similarly 2004 shows Sweden and Cyprus at fifth. http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=8. Can we work together and devise a footnote explaining this? It is the encyclopedia solution, nicht wahr? Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 01:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Poland, the United Kingdom and Germany all received a total of 14 points. Whilst the rules of the contest describe mechanisms to break a tie should it be for first place, it is ambiguous as to whether the procedure applies to other rankings. Should the rules apply, Germany having received more twelve points than the others would be ranked 23rd, Poland having scored more ten points than the UK would be ranked 24th, leaving the UK in 25th and last place. Other sources may list all three countries as having shared 23rd place.


 * The BBC here state that "Germany and Poland also received 14 points each, but they officially finished above the UK". Also BBC Radio 2 reported that the UK finished in last place due to Germany and Poland each getting higher individual scores. I think that as the EBU have ranked the UK as last, that is what we should do here. What the EBU say in this particular case is fact, and not ambiguous - they're the bosses. 131.111.195.8 (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules say it's only used to separate ranks where it means winning or qualifying. 23rd, 24th and 25th place are most certainly neither of those, so they're joint 23rd? 79.66.18.174 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no rules to break a tie, the tie doesn't get broken. That's trivial. LondonStatto (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the official scoreboard of the Eurovision Song Contest put United Kingdom on the 25th place, Poland on 24th and Germany on 23rd is because is like this. Stop putting ties, there are NO ties on the Eurovision Song Contest, it doesn't have to be specified on the rule, it's common sense Tony0106 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is common sense, then perhaps you could tell me the positions of the contestants of 1956 contest. Or why the official scoreboard shows shared positions for the 2002, 2004 and 2007 contests? What objections would you have to the boilerplate text I suggested above. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I readded the footnote. and  are examples of news sources who quote 'joint last'. There is clearly a matter here to be commented upon. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Scoreboard (and gallery)
Is there a way that the Scoreboard of the final will fit in the page without having to expand it to the right? If you know what I mean. I think is better if I said; is there a way the final scoreboard could fit in the margins of the page? I managed to change the gallery to with five pics per row instead of 6. I think it looks much better this way, so please do not change it. Thanks Tony0106 (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since every competing country has a snapshot of their performance it would be quite rude to leave out Serbia. Every country has a snapshot except them. Please provide one. Thank you. 11:01, 30 May 2008

Remove Commentators and Spokespersons sections
I believe those sections are a disaster: Not all of them are well sourced, there are missing commentators for some countries, all of them have links to Wikipedia pages but not even half of them have Wikipedia pages. Spokepersons play a minor role in the show; they just announce the results of the televoting of the country, they don't make any desicions and are not involved in the conduction of the festival, half of them don't even have any links with the participating broadcaster. Commentators are part of the telecast/broadcasting but not the show itself. So please remove this section from the Eurovision 2008 page and further pages. If you still would like to include them you can put them on the individuals country pages. Songwriters and composers are way more important than them and they are only included on the individual entries. Thanks Tony0106 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also they are never included in the Wikipedia in other languages; not even the bigger ones Spanish and German.Tony0106 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The citation needed issue can be resolved by removing the unsourced ones, which I did do but they were just re-added still without sources! It does need some work but I do not think we should remove it purely on these grounds. The gallery is less important as a more detailed one can be found on Commons - and if a reader wants pictures they can easily go there. In fact it has already been disputed by Chwech above if there should be a gallery for this reason - which brings up the question more on if it should remain. The commentators and spokespersons sections could be replaced with giving the commentators and spokespersons in each x country in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article. There are several issues with this 1) There will be the loss of general convenience to readers of having the content together, though this is less important than for other content such as scores. 2) The reality has to be faced that if the section is blanket removed, many of the x country in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 articles need work, and a lot of encyclopaedic information and sources would not make it to the individual articles. Therefore any removal has to be carefully done to ensure encyclopaedic information is not lost i.e by making sure the content is actually transferred to these articles. What other wikis do should not determine alone what is done here, and that may be due to less contributors than actual decisions. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think it should be removed and I didnt understand at all what you mean with the "encyclopeadic information". I believe the galleries should stay and I don't see why they wouldn't. There are galleries in other festival pages but the commentators/spokepersons is not needed. How many people actually care about that? Somebody can stay in charge of the individual pages so that "encyclopeadic information" doesn't get lost. Those sections look "ugly", I guess, in the page. Everything is nicely organized except for that.Tony0106 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well regarding the gallery, I'd point to WP:NOTREPOSITORY - "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". A few of those images is fine, but all 43 without any context is unencyclopedic. I'm not really too pushed about the commentators and spokespeople (of course, they need references), although I agree that they're less important than songwriters, and they don't get a mention in the article.  Chwe ch  21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourced, verifiable information, is encyclopaedic information. How interesting something is not usually very relevant in deletion and content debates. I find my thoughts on how ESC can be improved interesting - that doesn't mean I think it should be added to the article. I don't find maths articles interesting - that don't mean I think they all should be deleted. If at least one single person that reads the articles finds the information in these sections helpful/interesting/informative/useful as encyclopaedic information, which is almost certainley the case, then losing it it a bad thing as far as I concerned. On the in-charge of individual pages suggestion, well nobody can make themselves in charge of articles, but I will copy the content to my sandbox and keep it there for eventual moving into the x country in Eurovision Song Contest 2008 articles. The sections don't look that ugly to me, and even so the general response to issues like that is to fix it not to delete it. To review, I think the strongest, and the only argument I agree with given here so far for removal of these sections, is that they can be covered in the x country in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 articles - which is why I think that is what should happen.


 * On the gallery issue, well first I would like to point out that the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 still has its commentators and spokesperson sections, that does not mean it should be retained in this article. Similarly, just because Eurovision Song Contest 2007 and other pages has a gallery, does make it appropriate or mean it should be retained in this article. Chwech has already said well why - providing picture galleries is not a function of Wikipedia, pictures should be in articles to help illustrate and elaborate encyclopaedic information, fundamentally speaking nothing more. As I have already said Commons has a picture gallery which is appropriately linked, and you have said yourself article length is an issue, hence it really has to be asked should a gallery which is effectively redundant be retained.


 * As for the article being well organised, I don't fully agree with that either. The article is good but it is B-class - not anything more at this time as it does still need some work. With the hope of one day getting this to good/featured article status I do plan to re-organise, fill in gaps, and resolve problems - for example make sure the lead section only summarises the article per guidelines, and improve/clean-up referencing. I will probably draft major changes in my sandbox first, but any help is always appreciated. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be consensus for it I have removed the commentators and spokespersons section, and added it to my sandbox for re-location to individual entry pages. For the record removal reduced the article size by about 12kb. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

International broadcasts
German channel ARD did not broadcast any semi final, the article is wrong. NDR did show the first one live, and the second one was not live as it was broadcast a couple of hours later it happened. 195.190.180.28 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Spokespersons and Commentators
Why is that withdrew from the spokespersons and commentators?

GONÇALO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.129.149 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there was consensus to do so and they are going to be (or already have been?) moved to the individual countries' articles, like the songwriters and national final details.  Chwe ch  22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus reached to move them out of this article and into the individual ESC country entry articles. That has not yet happened, but it is on my list of things to do. The info is currentley stored at User:Camaron/Sandbox. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to block this page?
I have noticed that after a month the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 finished there are still people editing this page. Everyone agreed the Commentators/Spokepersons sections were to be eliminated from the main page and moved to the individual pages therefore there is no reason to keep on adding them. I'm asking the big guys here to BLOCK this page -if possible- and don't let absolutely anyone edit it because there is no reason why people should keep on editing it because the contest is over and nothing else is going to happen. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well through page protection, yes it is possible, however Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it so usage of page protection is restricted by the Protection policy which administrators should generally observe when protecting pages. To prevent absolutely anyone from editing the page full protection can be applied, I decline to implement this for several reasons. The main one is it is definitely against the protection policy, pages can only be protected during content disputes and in certain special circumstances which don't apply to this page. The article is not currently considered complete anyway, according to Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment an article is considered complete if reaches FA (Featured article) class, and even featured articles are not fully protected from editing to allow even more improvements and even for past events to add any new publications that might come out in the long-term. This article is currently B class and I do hope to improve to eventually up its grade. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reordering the scoreboard tally?
Sorry to bring this out, but can we recreate the final table? This isn't the order of the votes that were read out. I'm sure of it.124.188.180.129 (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It took me a long time to do the final table as it was a copy from eurovision.tv. --  [[ axg   ⁞⁞   talk   ]] 13:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we re-order it to be consistent with past years? Like with a diagonal row of blanks where each country lines up with itself. Kinda like on Eurovision Song Contest 2006. 2007 would also have to be changed too. Its a little hard to read the way it is now imo. I think only 2007 and 2008 have it written in this way. Grk1011 (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish language postcard
Article 8, Sections 1 & 2 of the Irish Constitution state:
 * 1) The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.
 * 2) The English language is recognised as a second official language.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng).htm

This is the relevant sentence (my addition in bold): "All [the postcards] were in the national language of the artist’s country, with the sole exception of the Irish postcard, which was written in English rather than Irish-Gaelic. The postcards were brought to an end by a stamp with this year's Eurovision logo."

Based on the cited source, the above sentence is true, and there is a difference between a national language and an official language. Unless I'm missing something here, that's quite unique among the 43 Eurovision postcards. I think that sentence should remain unaltered. Thank you. Thewriter2120 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. Grk1011 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentators and spokespersons move complete
It has taken a long time and was very tedious, but the commentators and spokespersons list that used to be in the article has now had most of its info transferred to the 2008 individual entry articles, from a listing that was at User:Camaron/Sandbox. So many countries enter into Eurovision it means that moving everything would have taken forever if all the sourcing, layout e.t.c for the commentators and spokespersons added to the entry articles had been perfect, so it is not, hopefully it will be improved with the rest of the articles. A few listed in my sandbox were not moved due to no source, unreliable sourcing, or some other reason. For the record they are:

Commentators
 * - Lia Fiorio and Gigi Restivo (for both radio and tv)
 * - Isabel Angelino
 * - Cécile Bähler

Spokespersons
 * - Hrachuhi Utmazyan
 * - Valentina Voykova.
 * - Christina
 * - Petra Šubrtová
 * - Maria Montell
 * - Cyril Hanouna Source does not appear to mention her.
 * - Alexis Kostalas
 * - Brynja Þorgeirsdóttir
 * - Niamh Kavanagh
 * - Noa Barak
 * - Oksana Fedorova
 * - Ognen Janeski
 * - Roberto Moretti
 * - Marysya Horobets
 * - Sabrina (2007 representant)
 * - Sven Epiney, Sandy Altermatt and Jean-Marc Richard and Nicolas Tanner

References

I would prefer that for 2009 the commentators and spokespersons are added straight to the entry articles so this move does need to be repeated every year. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About San Marino, I can guarantee the 2 commentators were Lia Fiorio and Gigi Restivo, for both radio and TV. This was announced on Radio San Marino. And while announcing the votes, Zeljko Joksimovic says "Good evening, Roberto Moretti".


 * i've put the portuguese commentator and spokesperson, and I guarante that they are rigth, I remember last year festival (the best of alls), and those to ladies were the persons who "represented" Portugal behind the scenes. For 2009, the names have alredy been given to now, Hélder Reis as commentator, and Sérgio Mateus as spoker person João P. M. Lima (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you can cite TV programs if you wish using cite video, citations do not have to be internet based. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, here is the spoker person (Sabrina) and here you can listen Isabel introducing Kalomira (Greece), i've not found the transmision of the beginig of the show, where the name of Isabel appers, but i will keep trying João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * well, if you look for the rigth side of the youtube page, in the informações you will see the name of Isabel Angelino (it says locução de Isabel Angelino, Commented by Isabel Angelino) João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Drive
I would like to see this article become a Good Article. A lot of information is currently out there so it shouldn't be too hard to add it all and get this page in great shape. If anyone wants to help (I'm not doing it myself :) ) reply or leave some suggestions or concerns here for editors to take into account and incorporate into the page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I told you on WLM, I have some busy times coming up but I will be happy to help. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Count me in. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Same as Camaron. You know that I'm busy this week but I'd be happy to help. I'll continue my MF08 article asap too. ńăŧħăń  -  ŧăłķ  20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Errors in televote scoreboard
Sweden and Bosnia-Herzegovina have both given two 10 points votes in the final televote scoreboard. Those are just the two errors I happened to stumble upon, so I'm pretty sure there are others too. Anyone with the correct numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.111.175 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help I have fixed these two 10s to the correct points. --  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Error sorting table by position
I have discovered an error with the scoring tables. Some of them sort the entries incorrectly when they are sorted by position.

Instead of sorting them numerically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc....) they sort in an alternative numerical manner (1, 10, 11, 12..... 18, 19, 2, 20, 21 etc.)

This error occurs sometimes, but not always and most frequently on the 'Finalists scoreboard' table.

Hope this can be easily rectified. Sorry for any inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.175.17 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a "0" in front of the single digit numbers. When there are two digits mixed with one, the sorter sorts by the first digit (or only) and then the second causing the mess up. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.133.157 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Commentators and spokespersons
Please note that I have started a discussion on this content issue once again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)