Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016/Archive 8

Does there really need to be an English translation column?
It seems a bit pointless since there are so few songs this year whose titles warrant translation, with none at all in semi-final 2. That extra column squashes the text in the table which makes it less readable in my opinion. GarethTJennings (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there an alternative method for displaying the info for the songs that do have an English translation? I wouldn't be opposed to dropping that column. Pickette (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just have the translation in brackets underneath the title in the Song column? -- Whats new?(talk) 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - The individual songs have the English translations so I don't really see a need to include it here - It's just unnessary fluff, The text does look rather squashed as well, So personally I think it should be wiped off. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Keep - To a point I think the column's useless however I'm English so I can't really say what method's easier if that makes sense, If people do go there to find song translations then I guess the column is easier and then there's the consistency - If removed here it'd probably need to be wiped on all of them ... Meh it's easier just to keep them. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC),


 * Keep: For songs competing in the early stages of Eurovision, every single one of them (generally) needed an English translation. For an average reader, sometimes going through every song article to find a translation is annoying and so having it readily there for them is much more efficient. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  00:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that you think I want every Eurovision article to have this column removed, which is not true. I'm only concerned about this edition's page because this column is just a vertical line of dashes apart from three songs. Although I have to admit that I can't think of another way to clearly indicate the title translations for BiH, France and Austria. But that would only be three links for the reader to have to follow. Or are you concerned about every article having the English translation column in the name of consistency? GarethTJennings (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Consistency has always been a vital key for Project Eurovision. So if we are to be considering an alternative method for dealing with English translations, then that new method would need to be rolled out across all ESC, JESC, Turkvizyon, ABU Song Festivals etc, and that is a lot of articles to update.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  12:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I can't argue with that. GarethTJennings (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: - I see no real reason for removing this information.BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about keeping the translations concentrated here, for readers only interested browsing through the songs on annual articles (I have also restored the previous discussed agreed title for France, with adding the source available from ESC official website). But I think tables are better to be evaluated on a case-by-case, with this case having an empty column for 2nd semi, and barely any translations overall, while the general structure of columns remains across the articles, but based on the column's necessity. With that, I agree with User:Whats new? suggestion to place the few existing translations in brackets and/or in a line under the original titles column. אומנות (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision to restrict YouTube broadcast in the US
I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned in the article (my apologies if indeed it is and I just missed it entirely) and it probably should as it has many viewers baffled. It appears that the United States is the only country where the YouTube broadcast (for both the final and the semifinals) is blocked, and they've specifically redirected US viewers to the LogoTV live-stream in the information box. I know for a fact that last year, both the standard "raw" broadcast and the one for the hearing impaired were open to US viewers. Why the change? As far as I know, in European countries were each national station holds the rights to the broadcast in their respective countries, the YouTube live-stream was made available as well, no? Why not in the US? Whether there is definite information on the subject or not, it's definitely worth mentioning, I think.T.W. (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The official live-stream on eurovision.tv has been blocked in the US as well. I imagine I'm not the only one furious about having to watch exclusively on LogoTV with obnoxious, sex-crazed LGTB commentators filling a family-friendly program with innuendo and inappropriate comments about underage performers.T.W. (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semifinal votes announced
The semifinal votes have been announced on the website so when are the points going to be put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.145.139 (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Jury votes vs Public votes
I was just looking at the results tables and wondered, perhaps the points awarded to each country should be split into 2 columns for jury votes and public votes, then totalled at the end? It gives quite a different story, for instance Poland only getting 7 points from the other countries' juries, but 222 from the public televotes... (just a thought) KoopaCooper (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Use the jury points from 1-8, 10 and 12. Just put a separate column for the overall televote points. --MSalmon (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I like this idea more than simply clumping all the televotes together. I think it will be more informative. Perhaps rather than two columns, the score could be presented as '8/12' or '2/0' with jury first and tele second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.81.92 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would just use the scoreboard from the official website and do it that way --MSalmon (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a scoreboard version similar to last years (Eurovision Song Contest 2015), that includes both jury and televotes. It can be viewed here: User talk:Lejman -- Lejman (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Split Votes
I have started formatting the overall split jury and televote points like there are on all other contest pages and I was wondering if I was ok to put them in once I have finished. C. 22468   Talk to me  09:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think use the jury results because that is what each spokesperson read out and have a extra column for the televoting points.--MSalmon (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In the televoting of the final, Spain should be over Germany, as this result was announced on the contest. C. 22468    17:59 29 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.62.2.35 (talk)

Withdrawing countries
Is there any reason for keeping just Portugal and Romania among withdrawing countries in the infobox? Eurovision_Song_Contest_2016 mentions other withdrawing countries. Brandmeistertalk  12:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The field in the infobox only covers those that competed last year, but withdrew this year. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  12:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Portugal and Romania participated in the 2015 Contest, and withdrew for the 2016 edition. The others listed at Eurovision Song Contest 2016 withdrew from previous years. They are listed there as all members are sent an invite to participate. Some who withdrew years ago still decided to stay withdrawn and not make a return. If that makes sense!?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  12:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, wouldn't mind, although it may be unobvious to the average reader. Brandmeistertalk  13:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious incidents related to the jury voting
The number of suspicious incidents related to the jury voting has increased dramatically this year.


 * Albanian jury members Flamur Shehu and Nisida Tufa have voted in a similar way awarding top 11 points to the same entries with 4-11 places being exactly the same countries which is statistically impossible. Both jury members have awarded 1-3 places to France, Australia and Italy, 4th place to Spain, 5th place to Malta, 6th place to Bulgaria, 7th place to Russia, 8th place to Ukraine, 9th place to Hungary, 10th place to the United Kingdom and 11th Azerbaijan. The last place for the both is also the same country - Georgia. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=2113&voter=AL
 * All Armenian jury members have awarded 1st Place to France and 2nd place to Georgia, which is statistically impossible, especially taking into account the discrepancy between the results of televoting and jury voting. Moreover, in the 1st semi-final all the members of Armenian jury awarded 1st place to Malta and 2nd place to Montenegro (which were placed respectively 2nd and 16th by the viewers) which is statistically impossible. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results?event=2123&voter=AM
 * Czech jury members Pavel Anděl, Petr Král and Markéta Nešlehová have the same top-3 and bottom-3. They awarded Sweden with 1st place, Hungary with 2nd place and Croatia with 3rd place, as well as Israel with 23rd place, Ukraine with 24th place and Russia with 25th place whereas Russia and Ukraine were the most popular entries according to the televoters and Croatia was the least popular one (25th place). In case of impartial and free voting, this event is statistically impossible.
 * Croatian jury members Pamela Ramljak and Kim Verson have voted in a similar way awarding bottom 4 points to the same entries – Germany (25th), Georgia (24th), United Kingdom (23rd), Austria (22nd). In case of impartial and free voting, the possibility of such an event is very low, especially taking into account the fact that Austria was the 5th most popular entry according to the viewers.
 * Australian jury members Myf Warhust and Craig Portails have voted in a similar way awarding top 6 points to the same entries – Belgium (1st), Israel (2nd), Bulgaria (3rd), Lithuania (4th), France (5th), Spain (6th). Another jury member Monica Trapaga’s top 6 are the same countries in a different order: Belgium (1st), Israel (4th), Bulgaria (2nd), Lithuania (6th), France (5th), Spain (3rd). In case of impartial and free voting, the possibility of such an event is extremely low and the event is itself unnatural, taking into account the results of televoting (especially that of Israel being 14th most popular according to the viewers and 2nd most popular according to the jury).
 * All the Lithuanian jury members have awarded Israel with 5th -7th places while the entry was the 19th most popular one according to the viewers. Similarly all the jury members have given Australia 1st or 2nd place whereas the televoters awarded her with 6th place. Russia was awarded 22nd to 25th places being the 3rd most popular entry among the televoters. Moreover, the top-7's of all jury members are suspiciously similar and most points are awarded within small ranges (E.g. Belgium – 4th-7th places, Germany – 11th-16th places, Austria – 19th-24th places, Russia – 22nd-25th places). Lithuanian broadcaster always somehow manages to choose jury members whose opinions do not relate to the opinion of the general public.
 * Austrian jury members Dorothee Freiberger and Hille have voted similarly both giving the 1st place to Australia, 2nd place to Malta, 3rd place to France, 6th place to Lithuania, 7th place to Czech Republic, 8th place to Russia and 25th place to Poland. In case of impartial and free voting, the possibility of such an event is very low. 5.77.170.246 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So that's a grand total of two incidents? Could you please explain why all these were "statistically impossible"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added other incidents. 5.77.170.246 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We can't just make up our own incidents based on odd voting patterns we've found. If news outlets begin reporting on these jury votes then we can consider adding it in, but right now it's all just original research. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. However this section should not be deleted as first reports are due to 16.05.2016. 5.77.170.246 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please could you explain your four instances of the phrase "statistically impossible"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An event which has a very small probability of occurrence is called statistically impossible. E.g. The event of all Armenian juries giving the 1st and 2nd places to the same countries is 1:152,587,890,625 according to the theory of probability and about 1:10'000'000 statistically. i.e. taking into account the fact that the juries have not chosen the countries randomly, but in accordance with their preferences which can be similar but to some extent. Statistically you cannot find a random group of 5 people in Armenia with 3mln population who, being free and impartial, would vote for the same two countries as their 1st and 2nd most popular ones. Therefore it is concluded that either the group of juries is not random (with predetermined preferences), or the voting was not impartial and free 5.77.170.246 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where's your source for that definition? Maybe should add that at the article for the National Lottery (United Kingdom)? And where's your WP:RS for 1:152,587,890,625? How many Armenian juries were there? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of articles dedicated to Probability theory and Probability distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Давид Эвоян (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

All of those "suspicious incidents" listed are way too much original research and based on personal point of view. Let us remember that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, it is not a means of advocacy or opinion pieces, and it is most certainly not a place to be speculating theories.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  13:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Final section
Any reason why the stuff about Ukraine-Russia is there? It seems more appropriate for the controversy section to me (With the exception of the sentence that directly relates to Ukraine winning)Hollth (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've removed it from the article and pasted it here until it is reworded in a more neutral tone and added to an appropriate section in the article. Pickette (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Though Eurovision has a "no politics" rule, Ukraine's winning song about the 1944 deportation of the Crimean Tatars was more political than most. Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union who deported the Crimean Tatars, occupied and annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, and there have been claims that Crimean Tatars were worse off after that annexation. Ukraine ended up narrowly winning over Australia and the bookmaker favourite Russia. Ukraine's narrow win over Russia has a symbolic significance to some; Ukraine is also currently in an armed conflict with Russia-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine.


 * Trying to understand how, while Eurovision has a no politics rule, songs with an anti-Russian content/agenda are allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.229.108 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think the controversy section is appropriate? Although I agree about the POV concerns. What about something along the lines of?


 * There was some controversy regarding whether Eurovision's ban on political songs was broken by Ukraine's winning song was about the 1944 Deportation of the Crimean Tatars by the USSR. Aside from the historical context, the Crimean peninsula was annexed from Ukraine by Russia in 2014 and Russia continues to back armed conflict with Russia-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine ended up narrowly winning over Australia and the bookmaker favourite Russia.

Is there any other info you think needs to be included?Hollth (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

12 points table
I feel like it would be clearer if we had separate 12 point tables for the juries and televotes individually, so that at first glance it is easier to compare the two? Posting here to see the opinion and get consensus. --ThatJosh (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I literally posted about this very idea a few minutes after you! I'd actually agree, and I have the source done so I could paste it in as soon as there was agreement. Bearnard O&#39;Riain. (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this should be included here also, but I feel like the points from jury/televote should also be separated on each country's individual pages too? Since there are quite big discrepancies there. --ThatJosh (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My take on it is if they split the results here, they should also split the results in each country's individual page. I think that's a very good point. Bearnard O&#39;Riain. (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So with the new voting system being introduced this year, the way 12 points will be displayed in this table is expected to be different from previous years. I had split the jury and televoting 12 points into separate tables here but another user reverted it to work on the scoreboard section. I personally find the combined jury and televoting 12 points table very difficult to read without getting a headache, so I'd like to know if people would agree with me splitting the tables and having a layout similar to the revision alluded-to above or similar to the tables in 2014. I have the source done, it'd just be a matter of getting some agreement from other editors as I'm sure it will be a contentious issue. Bearnard O&#39;Riain. (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed not so long ago, as it was noted that the new voting system would cause some issues regarding the way we present the 12 points summary tables. The way it has been done at the moment, by having separate tables for jury and televote is perfect and much easier. Although I do not see why some countries are in bold text. I have taken note that the article does provide an explanation to the bold text, but is it necessary to have them in bold typeface at all? Because the explanation comes across as if we are calling the intellect of the average reader. They can see from the tables that some countries awarded 12 points from both jury and televote. Let's not make our readers to look dumb!  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  08:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Denmark's Jury
With one of the Danish jury voting incorrectly, have the EBU released a statement saying that the votes have been rectified? --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  19:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently it does not alter the overall result, just the margins. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any official source from the EBU that states the results have been changed because of this mistake the Danish juror made. I've reworded the section in the article that was added about this since it was implying that the scores were changed. Pickette (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016
I would like to cite a source for the "Old system vs. New system" part, namely http://eurovisionworld.com/?esc=old-voting-system-australia-would-have-won-eurovision-2016, which is a well-established Eurovision site.

Kristian terlien (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. You've not said exactly what you want to be added/ removed/ changed. But I agree that this is a significant issue, if proven to be valid, given the repeated assurances, made during the show by Petra Mede, that it was only the method of announcing the results, not the system, that had changed. It might even belong in the article lede. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Public vote
Has there been any controversy over the public vote, given the ludicrous situation with the Polish result? In the jury vote they were second-last with just 7 points, to then being vaulted to fourth from top in the public vote. No doubt this is due to the large Polish population all around Europe. Surely a case of people voting for the country not the song.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tuzapicabit, it was indeed remarkable and noticeable for me as well when it was declared so high at the televotes, but I personally didn't see external controversy articles. If someone finds sources it would be valuable to add.אומנות (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to a Swedish broadcaster blog (http://blogg.svt.se/eurovision/australien-sjunger-upp-sig-och-polen-sjunger-bort-sig/), the Polish singer accidentally sang out of tune at one of the tones near the end of his song when singing for the jury. (Which happens the day before the televised final.) That could explain why the juries scored him so low while so many viewers loved him. -- Lejman (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the jury voted against Poland not only in the final but also in the semifinal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Давид Эвоян (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the UK public vote has a (recent) history of giving Poland and Lithuania the top points in every applicable vote (I've noticed this pattern over at least the last 3 contests), I wouldn't be surprised if it is due to people living abroad voting for their home country. But could it really have that much of an affect? I think they need to put the UK in the semi-final voting group that doesn't include Poland and Lithuania :-) anemone projectors  08:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Venue image
There is currently a dispute over the choice of image to be used for the venue section. The article currently (and originally) uses an image of the venue that was taken in 2012 (File:Stockholm Globe Arena 2012.jpg). User:Bruzaholm has changed it twice to their preferred opinion of an image that was taken in 1988 (File:Globen aug 1988.jpg). Seeing as this contest is in 2016, shouldn't the more recent image taken 4 years be used rather than an version taken 28 years ago? I'm bringing this discussion here so that a consensus can be reached.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  12:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is also an image of the Globe taken in 2016 which is very recent (File:Globen från Hammarbybacken, 2016.jpg). Perhaps that would be a better version to use?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Use the newest. That's the most representative. Hollth (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake not shown in the US
I added in the interval section where Justin Timberlake's performance wasn't shown in the US due to lack of rights and the first semi final interval act was shown instead. Just double checking to make sure that was the right place or if it needed to be in the incident section.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the right place to have included the information, as it wasn't an "incident" as such, just a lack of rights issue.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Australia would have won if the voting system hadn't changed
Is this worth mentioning at all? Guardian source other source anemone projectors  08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really no. Personally it doesn't seem to hold much due weight, and only states that if the rules hadn't been changed that Australia would have won. It would, however, hold weight on Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  09:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, I wasn't really sure - the rules are the rules, but I think it's probably of interest to a lot of people. anemone projectors  09:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens in light of the revelation that the winning entry was released prior to 1 September 2015 (see thread above this one). If the EBU do end up disqualifying Ukraine, then Australia would no doubt be given the "winners crown", and then the story you found would hold more weight to this article.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  09:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Was Jamala's song legal due to the fact that it seems to be very old for this contest?
From one side, Youtube cannot be a trusted information source, but from the other side there is a video uploaded in May of 2015 with this song, "1944": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xivfN-MCjQ&t=240 The only difference that this song had another name in 2015. 176.77.31.1 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What are the rules? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The compositions (lyrics and music) must not have been commercially released before the 1st of September 2015. In case the composition has been made available to the public, for example, but not limited to, on online video platforms, social networks or (semi-) publicly accessible databanks, the Participating Broadcaster must inform the Eurovision Song Contest Executive Supervisor, who shall have authority to evaluate whether the composition is eligible for participation in the Event.(http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/rules)176.77.31.1 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As if to emphasise the ephemeral nature of YouTube, that linked video has just disappeared as "private" (in UK at least). But I'd suggest that a performance of a song, in some provincial Ukraine theatre, filmed by a distant audience member, with their mobile phone, and then uploaded, free of charge, to YouTube, with no copyright attached, would hardly count as "commercially released". What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC) p.s... but maybe the video is still available where you are?
 * Yes, I'm from Moscow, and so what? Well anyway, it seems that this video unfortunately blocked for everybody. The problem is not that this song was uploaded to Youtube on May, 2015 (Youtube is just a way to confirm that this song may be too old). The problem is that this is not a "home video", this is video from performance in Kiev which was at least on May, 2015.176.77.31.1 (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It was performed in a small venue and it had a total of just over 1,000 views yesterday afternoon. Also, the English parts were in Ukrainian and the lines in the chorus were reversed. Anja Nissen, SunSay and Pur:Pur had similar problems and they were cleared by the EBU. I don't think there's anything to worry about. —    A ndreyyshore    T    C    05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ESCToday have published a story about this. And I do find that rather strange that it was first brought up here by an IP and no other website had reported on the story. And now one has. Anyhow, the EBU are releasing a statement on this matter later today (allegedly) so we will know more by then. Looks like they may have to review the results after all. So much for the EBU ignoring the petition lol.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  08:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Scoreboard table
I wrote a scoreboard table, in white/blue to show the different jury and televoting results. I think it's as easy to read as such a table can be. Anyhow, I prefer the voting countries to be sorted alphabetically, but note that others might prefer it to be sorted by (jury) vote order. The upside with alphabetical order is that it makes it quicker and easier to look up individual countries' votes.

Previous years the vote-order made sense as it gave an idea of when a country "ran away" with the victory. Now that point has been removed, as the decider is delivered by the lump-sum televotes.

Alternatively, the voting order could also be presented in its own row (like this:)

Also, feel free to use the same core to create scoreboard tables for the semi-finals. -- Lejman (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That table format looks very useful. But "voting order" seems a bit of a misnomer to me. Presumably all juries have to vote, within a certain time window, at the same time (even if they are in Australia)? And the public televoting also has to take place all within a fixed short space of time. All we are talking about here is the order in which each country is called to present votes. In previous finals I seem to remember that last minute technical issues occasionally caused the planned order to be changed. But the order can have no effect on the final result and is a best a trivial directorial detail? I'd be more interested to know why the order of announcement differs from simply alphabetical order of each county name. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all countries vote at the same time. It's just when their votes got presented. I too consider it's mostly trivia information (like you say it doesn't affect the result at all). I'm not sure why the order was non-alphabetical to begin with. The last couple of years they've sorted the countries based on the jury scores (since they know those the day before). That way they could present countries to maintain a tie in the lead as long as possible, for the suspense. It worked somewhat, but sometimes their sorted list got thrown off by televotes making the eventual winner abundantly clear early on anyway. The "voting order" row isn't currently included in the table, but could be included if that is preferred. I don't have any strong opinion against it, I just wonder if the added trivia is worth the added difficulty of reading the table. (The added difficulty isn't very severe, but it is a rather bulky table to begin with, simply because of the complexity of the information presented.) -- Lejman (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about sortability? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If you mean sorting the (points-giving) countries, I don't think it's possible to sort a row. If you mean the points-receiving countries, I guess that could be possible. If you mean the actual points given, then merely adding them would be easy enough, but if you don't want 10/12 to be sorted between 1 and 2, it would take a some work to include that xP -- Lejman (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorting is a real benefit. If rows just can't be sorted, that's quite a big disadvantage, I think. Most tables at wiki seem to sort columns. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The voting order as presented on the night of a contest for the scoreboard tables has never been used. They have always been in alphabetical order. One only needs to look at recent tables post-semifinals (2004) to see they are in alpha-order.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  00:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright then. Well that resolves that. -- Lejman (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried sorting making the scoreboard table sortable. It looked hideous. All columns got twice as wide (making the table extremely big). It was bad. I instead made the split jury/televote table sortable. That looked okay, so I left it sortable. -- Lejman (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone reverted the sortability of the split jury/televote table :P - Lejman (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that is because they have followed specific manual of style guidelines. The scoreboard tables have never been sortable in the 11-year history of WikiProject Eurovision. It causes technical problems.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No semi-final appearance, yet in the finals
I might be reading the tables wrong but can someone explain to me how a country can have no placing in the semi-finals and the pop up out of nowhere in the finals. ...first semi-final. ...second semi-final.

I looked for France from the beginning and didn't see them until I got to the finals charts. Is this an error or am I reading the charts wrong? 206.45.207.80 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See Eurovision Song Contest, on why France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, don't participate in the semi-finals. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird, Okay thanks, I guess it helps to read the whole novel. 206.45.207.80 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this would be encyclopedic
Also, no true sources to back it, but I'll comment it anyway: The 184-point gap between Russia and Bulgaria set a new record for the largest point difference between consecutively placed songs in Eurovision (Previous record was 178 between Norway and Iceland in 2009). Would this be noteworty? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It might be, although all the scores this year were essentially double what they would've been last year, so the margin is probably smaller in terms of total points available?Chewy5000 (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction regarding director credit.
The shows were directed by Robin Hofwander and Daniel Jelinek. Sven Stojanovic was the show producer. Hfwndr (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible contradiction?
These two sentences are in the lead. 'This was the first time since the introduction of professional jury voting in 2009 that the overall winner won neither the jury vote' 'The contest was also the first to implement a voting system change since 1975' The first seems to contradict the second. An introduction of professional jury voting is presumably a change in voting system. Hollth (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is stating that the winner, Ukraine, won the contest but did not win the jury vote or the public televote. The second sentence is stating that the voting system was changes so that both the jury and televote were presented separately.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  10:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Hollth is right: the second statement is wrong, even though what it's trying to say is true. The voting system was changed in 1997 with the (partial) introduction of televoting, and then again in 2009, so it's not right to say 'The [2016] contest was also the first to implement a voting system change since 1975'.  What was changed in 2016 was the point awarding system.  The sentence needs rewording to perhaps something like 'The system for distributing points was changed for the first time since 1975'. Knole Jonathan (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Knole Johnathan I'm not familiar enough with the history of Eurovision to know what changed. It's obvious something changed and I think the two sentences make it ambiguous. Looking at the [Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest]] it does look like the voting system/calculation changed as recently as 2013, after the 2009 jury changes so I'd say the no changes since 1975 is definitely misleading. From that page it looks like both the calculation and presentation of the points changed. Hollth (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016
Hey, so the semi-final 1 scoreboard has one noticeable error; Azerbaijan's televote has given two sets of 10 points to both San Marino and Malta whilst giving no one 8 points. I checked the official webpage and the results say that Malta got 8; not 10. It appears that this has affected Malta's overall score by two in the televote and combined vote, as well as its position on the full split results ladder. 124.190.38.42 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So I found my old account (I'm the IP) and basically the full scoreboard of Semi-Final 1 shows the Azerbaijani televote with two set of 10 points and no 8 points. Azerbaijan's televote for Malta needs to be changed from 10 to 8, as well as all calculations with said amount if I am correct. TheEuroVisionary (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How can I even make that any clearer ffs change Azerbaijan's televote from 10 to 8 in Malta's Semi-Final 1 performance, along with all calculations it is involved in. Can someone who isn't a bot at least respond? TheEuroVisionary (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Using the acronym "ffs" (for f*ck sake) is not being very WP:CIVIL either. Some people may not know what it means, but there are others who do. Please be more polite in future.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  11:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon my language but I don't understand what I've done incorrectly in my request, and it's a bit frustrating. How could I possibly make that more specific? TheEuroVisionary (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on |your talk page, you should read the template messages and make some attempt to follow the instructions. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Try something like this:

Change:
 * - style="font-weight: bold; background: navajowhite;"
 * 12
 * French
 * Zoë
 * "Loin d'ici"
 * Far from here
 * 7
 * 170
 * 13
 * English
 * Jüri Pootsmann
 * "Play"
 * 18
 * 24
 * "Play"
 * 18
 * 24
 * 24

to:
 * - style="font-weight: bold; background: navajowhite;"
 * 12
 * French
 * Zoë
 * "Loin d'ici"
 * Far from here
 * 7
 * 170
 * 13
 * English
 * Jüri Pootsmann
 * "Play"
 * 18
 * 42
 * "Play"
 * 18
 * 42
 * 42

because source cited. B E C K Y S A Y L E S  12:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My main concern right now is that strangely resembles the same name as the website EuroVisionary. I hope that there are no connections, as that would be violating conflict of interest and inappropriate user name policy.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  14:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually had no idea that was a real website haha, this user is just based off of an online username I gave myself mixed with Eurovision. What is a conflict of interest anyway? Secondly, my account may have been created ages ago but I'm still a definite noob at Wikipedia so please don't take my confusion personally, I barely understand how to edit as it is :/. The format that you've now shown me I could not find in any of the links you replied with, unless I'm blind, but in addition to that I can hardly edit and/or explain or the calculations that need editing either with this format, otherwise I wouldn't be making an edit request lol. I wan only trying to help, I'm big on stats. :( TheEuroVisionary (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The conflict of interest would occur only if you were actually worked for the website EuroVisionary, purely because of your username. Such name is not allowed on Wikipedia, because of the fact that it also belongs to a website, and that is in accordance with WP:CORPNAME, and unless you request Changing username from an administrator, then you are facing having your account indefinitely blocked. So if you do wish to continue editing legitimately, then I strongly urge that you request such name change very swiftly before you end up blocked. I shall ping to this conversation who is an admin, who may be able to help you with your change of name request.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  08:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So this whole issue is this: "Azerbaijan's televote gave Malta 8 points not 10." If that's what our source says, it should just be corrected in the tables here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This is all I really wished to happen. :)
 * I don't know how I could really prove it but I definitely don't have any association with the EuroVisionary website, I had no knowledge on its existence until you first mentioned it a few days ago. This account was based off of my love for Eurovision in conjunction with an online username I use in several places called 'TheVisionary11', though I'd rather not have everyone need to know that, but it's basically my only proof per say, you can see my email to confirm that yourself (actually I don't know if that type of info is public on Wikipedia but oh well.). At this rate it might just be better to start a new account anyway so I don't look like a complete asshole for some irrelevant edits. :/
 * First off I'll apologise for being a little rude to you but I'll try to explain my frustration so that I don't seem uncivil or whatever you want to call it. To begin with, you never actually linked a 'template' message so I was confused as to what you were referring to. The message you left on my talk page was just the same message reworded and the use of something called which I have no idea what I can use it for. Consider me a new user because I basically only know some basic markup knowledge from seeing what other people used in edits (like the ping thing) and I was left unsure of what I was doing wrong. Secondly, this isn't necessarily directed at you in particular but if someone is make a semi-protected edit request you can be sure that they are: either new, unfamiliar, or inexperienced to Wikipedia editing; and asking for help. How would they (including me) know how to follow these formatting instructions properly when they are not aware of how to fix the article themselves? I believe this defeats the purpose of the request as otherwise I would expect that such a person would be experienced enough that he or she wouldn't have to file a semi-protected edit request in the first place. Do you see my confusion? I hope so.
 * Kind regards, TheEuroVisionary (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC) also please remember WP:NOOB <-- at least I'm learning how to link haha. :)

Timberlake interval act
The Justin Timberlake interval act segment seemingly not included on the official DVD. --180.183.136.186 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160514120554/http://tvprogramm.srf.ch/details/1964076089 to http://tvprogramm.srf.ch/details/1964076089
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160514120558/http://tvprogramm.srf.ch/details/1952833898 to http://tvprogramm.srf.ch/details/1952833898
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160514120601/http://tvprogramm.srf.ch/details/1954458265 to http://tvprogramm.srf.ch/details/1954458265

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509143639/http://www.svt.se/melodifestivalen/artister/2015/mans-zelmerlow-heroes to http://www.svt.se/melodifestivalen/artister/2015/mans-zelmerlow-heroes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522144052/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/which-countries-can-take-part to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/which-countries-can-take-part
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826110418/http://www.eurovisionhouse.nl/bdaward.php to http://www.eurovisionhouse.nl/bdaward.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)