Talk:Lena Meyer-Landrut/Archive 1

Positions of original tracks
Erikupoeg has deleted the chart positions of the songs performed by Meyer-Landrut during Unser Star für Oslo. I disagree that those are irrelevant for the article, since the chart positions did not only reflect the chart performance of the songs themselves but also the effect of Meyer-Landrut covering/performing them. This effect has been considerable in some cases, with My Same and Mr. Curiosity charting for the first time ever in any single charts and other songs like Foundations and Neopolitan Dreams recharting long after they were first released. It is a loss for the article if this is not mentioned. Opinions? Janfrie1988 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the idea when I included the chart positions. Maybe it could be better explained what they indicate.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 14:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is no opposition I would suggest we restore the chart positions of the original songs after Meyer-Landrut's performance?! Janfrie1988 (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The chart positions the way they were postd had no relevance to the topic of this article. If Meyer-Landrut had an effect on the chart positions, it is better explained in the text. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Four of the eight songs she sang on television reached their peak chart position following her performance. I do think that's a pretty noteworthy fact and I don't see what's wrong with including it in the table. Like I said above, the chart column might need a better explanation.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that her effect on the chart positions of the original songs is indeed already covered in the text. I will add the references we had formerly for the chart positions of the original songs after her performance to this section. I think this will be enough, then. Or do you think it should still also be in the chart about her USFO appearences? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Europe's positions
I see that the European positions have been restored, this source needs to be replaced as the positions are not Peak positions, they will change the following week as they indicate the positions for the week April 3, 2010, and once changed, the positions will no longer be verifiable. If there are no other sources at the moment which could support the Europe's positions, then the current positions need to be removed and restored only when the Billboard posts the Peak positions for Lena's singles.--Harout72 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see your point. For the time being the source indicates the most recent chart positions and since Satellite, Love Me, and Bee are clearly marked as debuts it is obvious that these are their peak positions. Therefore it was wrong to remove them from the article. Even in case the positions change once the new chart is released it will still be possible to verify them by comparing the new chart with the one from April 3rd, as it will be archived. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

When in the following week "Satellite" climbs higher (for example) on the European 100 and the rest of the two songs "Bee" and "Love Me" drop, then the chart for the week of April 3, 2010 (the current source) can no longer be used as it will no longer indicate the peak position for "Satellite", and using the following week's chart will not do either as it won't have the highest positions for latter two songs. Therefore, charts issued on weekly bases cannot be used as they do not indicate Peak-positions. This here is one example of the European 100's peak-positions, which is not yet available for Lena Meyer-Landrut. I hope you see my point now.--Harout72 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. As long as the source includes Bee and Love Me and displays them as debuts, however, it is fair to include them. Or is it not? Janfrie1988 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If "Bee" and "Love Me" drop from their current positions, we could use the chart for the week of April 3, 2010 to support the positions (although many experienced editors will disagree with the use of it as they're not necessarily Peaks), however, we'd also need the second chart to keep up with the climb of "Satellite", if it does climb higher than No.9. If "Satellite" drops, then April 3rd's chart will do for all, but again it won't be the correct approach.--Harout72 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well, personally I think that information value should always be of a higher priority than excessive formal correctness. Especially since we actually have sources and everyone who is interested is (and will be) able to reproduce the information given in the article (at least concerning the Position of Satellite). As for the positions of Love Me and Bee: I think even if it is impossible to reconstruct their peak position after the European singles chart is updated, we should keep them in the article and add a "not in reference given" template or so. After all, we know that the positions are correct and therefore information value should again excel formal correctness. As far as I know, it is also pretty much the de facto standard on Wikipidia not to delete unsourced chart positions (unless they are very unlikely) and instead place a template of some kind. See The Beatles discography, for instance, where many chart positions are not sourced at all. Janfrie1988 (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never come across the policy in wikipedia personally, which states that unreferenced positions could remain in place. That said, the example of the Beatles' given above should not be practiced elsewhere. Let's bear in mind that statements, chart-positions, certification-awards etc. are all to be verifiable, see WP:V. In the case of Landrut, once the chart for European 100 is updated, we could source each European 100's position respectively in its own box (using archived charts) just to have proof that each mentioned track has, in fact, reached the posted position.--Harout72 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, we should do that. Btw: I never claimed it to be a policy that unsourced chart positions remain in place, yet de facto they usually do - and that for a reason. The Beatles are not the only case. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that there seems to be one problem with the archived charts for European 100, it seems that archived charts illustrate the Top-10 weekly charts only, rather than the full chart. While I'm normally very strict when it comes to poorly sourced materials, in this case, I'll try and wait for a week or two until Landrut's European 100 Peaks become available on Billboard's site. Currently, "Bee" and "Love Me" are not verifiable. Chart-positions, certifications etc, (as I mentioned earlier) must be referenced, and verifiable, they are not considered De facto, please see WP:DEFACTO, feel free to ask any experienced editor. As for the Discography of The Beatles, I will try and find the time to source the positions and remove all those positions that cannot be found within sources.--Harout72 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Album release
Lena's debut album will be released on 7 May 2010. http://www.presseportal.de/meldung/1594219 (In German) --Melly42 (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Genres
Redpower94, could you please provide a source for one of Meyer-Landrut's genres being Indie-Pop? She has only released three songs so far and as far as I have read those have only been called Pop-songs. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well, if you compare Lena Meyer-Landrut with Kate Nash (who has a rather similar song style) it might be possible that Lena will go into a similar genre as Nash. --Melly42 (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible expansion
Ideally, in a accordance with other well developed articles on comparable subjects, the page should include some form of "Musical style" section, to describe her music a bit further as well as her influences (already mentioned), and it should include a "In the media / Public image" section, which would detail her public persona and image as well as noteworthy appearances. I'm not sure if enough material is available at this point to add sections that are longer than one or two sentences, but maybe relevant information could be collected here, or maybe someone wants to go ahead an write something on their own. EnemyOfTheState undefined 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. It's just a matter of whether we have anything in the RS on that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In general I also agree. I just haven't seen any source describing the music she actually does (not sang cover versions of!) as anything else but pop. I also find sections on "public image" difficult as they often tend to include a lot or original research. This is only different if we find a reliable source that somehow sums up and comments on her media appearances. We can't just do that ourselves. Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While there might be not too much information on her music yet, I think quite a lot could already be found about her public image. The five German articles in the Further reading section alone would probably be enough to write one or two paragraphs.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 17:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mahasz
For the record: "Editor's Choice" by Mahasz (Hungary) is a critics list rather than a reflection of actual sales or airplay. It is listed under WP:BADCHARTS and should not be used. Please stop adding "Editor's Choice" positions to the article. Thank you :). Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The featured list Tokio Hotel discography might be good blueprint how the discography of a German act could look like. I don't think the Czech airplay chart needs to be listed here either (only on the song page).  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree concerning the Czech Airplay Chart. I wasn't aware at first that it is an Airplay and not a sales chart. Anyway, is there any official Czech sales chart and is there moreover a reliable source for it? Unlike the "Editor's" choice chart by Mahasz the airplay imo deserves to be mentioned in the article on "Satellite", though. Janfrie1988 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmother
According to this source her grandmother is an (ethnic) Hungarian. "Seine Ehefrau, Lenas Oma also, ist Ungarin." According to the these sources, she's a Hungarian noble woman. The International Who’s Who 2004. Europe Publications Ltd., London 2003, p. 1131, ISBN 1-85743-217-7, ("Magyar nagymamája van Németország új arcának", literally: "Germany's new face has Hungarian grandmother") --Rovibroni (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See "Family" for my opinion on that. Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a relevant information. In the articles of e.x. American actors there are some information about their families (for example his father, an Irish-American and his mother, a German-American etc.).--Rovibroni (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also not totally sure if I like the information about her grandfather, but it is still different, because he was mentioned in several media articles on Meyer-Landrut and she even (shortly) mentioned him in at least one interview. All this is not the case for her grandmother. Again: We are no yellow press magazine. Meyer-Landrut clearly consciously avoids making her private life and family a part of her public image. Unless there is something really interesting and notable going on with her family members or they become vitally important for understanding her as an artist, I will revert any edit concerning such information from now on. Except, of course, if there is significant opposition of several of the other main editors here. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, don't know about the category. To be consistent we would also have to add "Germans of Estonian origin". Personally I tend to not find heritage from three generations ago notable, especially when it is neither part of the public image nor part of her personal history. If she had migrated from Hungary this might be different. *shrug* Opinions from other editors? Sorry to be so confrontational, I find it nice that she seems to have ancestors all over Europe - I just don't find it notable. I see you are from Hungary - is it that? ;) Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See your talk page:).--Rovibroni (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Second largest margin of victory?
Was this really the second largest margin of victory? If so, I think it should be in the lead instead of the exact points and date, which I think is trivial for the average reader. EnemyOfTheState undefined 13:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. At least in absolute numbers of points. See here, for instance. I don't know about the relative distance to the runner-up though, as I guess that the absolute number of total points has increased in recent times. I have also read somewhere (forgot where unfortunately) that she received the second lowest average points of a Eurovision winner (do not even try to ask me how this goes together mathematically ;) ), so I would be hesitant to use superlatives in the lead. Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very simple: Lena received an extremely small share of points while the runner-up received an extremely small amount of votes as well, due to the very even share of votes between the rest of the participants. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Raab mentioned the "second largest margin of victory" in today's TV total. Does he read the English articles on Meyer-Landrut and himself? The margin is not mentioned in the German article. ;) Janfrie1988 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandfather
The grandfather was born in Estonia, but he was not "Estonian born" as is stated in the text. 78.53.46.199 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the difference? Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You can be born in Estonia without beeing an Estonian. The German citizenship didn't depend on the place were you are born and Estonia had a long history of ethnic Germans. Also his name is German. 78.53.46.199 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In English, "born in X" and "X born" have an identical meaning. There is no implication of nationality in either. Bazonka (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a difference between "Estonia born" (country) and "Estonian born" (nationality, ethnicity). 92.231.209.226 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the point of using "Estonian born" is to not use "Estonian". It's jut that in estonian (the language) the ethnonym and the demonym representing Estonians have become different, in english they are the same (at least in this case) and this might confuse non-native english speakers. "Estonian" in "Estonian born" is a demonym, it denotes the place, the country of origin, in correct translation to estonian it's "eestimaalane" or "Eesti ...", not "eestlane" or "eesti ..." (the different capitalisation matters also).Siidisukk (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Siidisukk. In English you would never say "Estonia born" or "Germany born", etc. but always "Estonian born", "German born". Bazonka (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Own discography page
I think it's time that Lena could have her own discography page now. I mean, she's has an album and 3 singles. Also, there would be an "Other charted songs" and them other charted songs would be "My same" which charted at #61, and "Mr curiosity" which charted at #44. In addition, as "Satellite" is currently #1 in the irish itunes chart, and #18 in the british itunes chart, I really think she'll need her own page. Sadly, as I'm not experienced on wikipedia, someone else shall have to create it! haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicMarcusKitten (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a discography page, not people just need to edit it and make it look better, as I don't know how to add pictures ect. AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With only one album and three singles, I don't think we really need a sub-article yet.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I take the silence as a sign that most editors agree the discography should have its own page? It should be cleaned up then. ;)  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 12:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, well, to quote you: I don't really care much one way or the other. ;) I might have a slight (tiny!) preference for keeping it in the main article for now, but now that it has been created it can stay this way, if you ask me. Sooner or later we would have had to do it, anyway. Maybe it is not so bad with all the chart positions that are likely to pop up all over the place over the next week. Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
There is a of Meyer-Landrut. It was posted on Flickr and shows her after winning the ESC. It is very sharp and shows her face very clearly. We should incorporate it into the article. Just where? Maybe even as infobox picture? Janfrie1988 (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the infobox picture. I think it's clearly the best we have, its sharp plus she looks in the right direction. Should probably be cropped a bit on the left and top, but I don't have time now.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 03:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice. I don't know about the cropping, though. I kind of like the picture as it is. It seems less "static" the way it is, I presume. Don't know what the others think, however. Janfrie1988 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Satellite wasn't written for the contest, as one of the writer's states here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10192518.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.72.205 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this picture is better. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lena_Oslo8-2_(cropped).jpg Her looks is better there and she does not look so paled. Linnea94 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a matter of taste, after all *shrug*. I just like the current one better. The only non-subjective reason for keeping the current one may be the fact that it shows her after the most notable event in her career so far, i.e. winning the Eurovision. Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright then, this is starting to look like an edit war, so I suggest we discuss and settle the matter here. Which one should be the infobox picture? Unless someone wants to "nominate" another one, the candidates are:


 * Press conference after winning the ESC (either this or the cropped version)
 * Meeting Oslo's mayor
 * In Hannover after winning USFO


 * I'd go for the first one. Opinions? Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 1 & 3 are almost equally good. I don't like 2 (unsuitable perspective).  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Among 1 and 3 I prefer 3. Linnea94 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Linnea94. 3 is the best pic. Maybe this one is pretty good too? KzKrann (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so that they are easier to compare:

I've just uploaded a new version of 2, with the blown highlights fixed, but I would still certainly either use 1 or 4. 3 is, in my opinion, right out, due to the top-down perspective, and I find the face in the background of 2 very distractive. 4 is the only one where she actually looks into the camera. 1 or 4 can be cropped a bit, of course, if that's why they find less support. Cheers, Amalthea  10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think #4 fits perfectly in the infobox. Having said that, we might be able to find more suitable pictures in the future. Merely having a vote for the present crop of photos seems a bit strange, but I'm at a loss at what else can be done. Jared Preston (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind, 4 is probably the best solution (could be cropped a bit at the top though). File:Lena Meyer-Landrut, Tyskland (2).jpg or File:Lena Meyer-Landrut, Tyskland (3).jpg could be used in the text instead of the (then duplicate) image, while the current infobox picture might be moved to the position of the third image.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think #4 needs cropping at all. It's good to see the Eurovision logo there. And even if the photo doesn't go into the infobox, it should at least be in the article somewhere. Jared Preston (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree 4 is a good pic. I changed to have it at the top and number 3 in the Unser Star für Oslo section. It should probably benefit from cropping, however then you couldn't see the ESC logo. Linnea94 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like her facial expression in #4 at all. It looks shy and almost a little fearful, which surely doesn't characterise her. I could surely rather live with #4 than with #2 or #3, though. Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe we can say that 4 is the most suitable image for the infobox. 1 and 3 can be used in the text below, and 2 is left outside? KzKrann (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Other pictures
Erm, I don't wanna start bitching about the pictures again, but is too dark in the right half, not very sharp and quite grainy probably due to the high film speed settings when it was taken. Should it really stay in the article? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind like it, to show the style of the Eurovision performance. In particular, I like it better than the cropped one with the background singers cut away (but I didn't say anything since I didn't want to start bitching about it again ;) ). Amalthea  10:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hannover
By the way: Hannover is spelled with two "n"! 91.64.235.22 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, in English "Hannover" is usually spelled "Hanover". - 92.224.158.4 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In German it is called "Hannover", in English both "Hannover" and "Hanover" are possible. Since we are on en:, both are possible, as long as we are consistent within the article. However, it should be added that the trend is towards "Hannover" even in English, except for historical contexts and names, i.e. in House of Hanover. Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In English, the city, dynasty and kingdom/electorate have on n. The federal state has two. Binabik80 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by "state" I obviously mean "district". Binabik80 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article
What do you think. Can we rewrite this article that it will got a feature article nomination? Or it is too early? --Melly42 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on this but I don't think there is much that needs to be re-written. I think the article is okay as it is. We just need to add some stuff, though. I think  EnemyOfTheState  's suggestion of having a section on public image is a good idea. By now we should have enough material about that. If we have done that - well, maybe we can call it a "B" article. I'm not sure but I think featured article is a little early. It would need to be a lot more detailed, I guess. Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support a Featured article nomination.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * me to. Take the article about the polar bear cub Knut as example. This is a featured article --Melly42 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We should start by putting it up for GA then wait a few days and put it up for FA. GA status is always the first and best step towards FA. Shouldnt be any problem at all for this article to pass GA.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's be cautious with this. Also, I would like to hear some more opinions, maybe  EnemyOfTheState   and Kww at least before we submit it, so that we don't look totally silly. Janfrie1988 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Start with a GA review. I think you're a bit light for FA, but GA is always the place to start, and you look reasonably close to that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah i agree with Kww. So if someone please could fix a GA nomination it would be appreciated.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Media Image
I have added a section on Media image to the article. Altough I am usually not totally comfortable with those sections, I think it gives a fair overview over her public image, including criticism. If you dislike something, please change it or take it out altogether. I have never written such sections before and in no way want to harm our upcoming GA nomination. Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, Media Image sections are nothing unusual on biography pages. However, I have never written one and if it is unencyclopedic, its definitely better to take it out. It would be still better, of course, if someone could make it encyclopedic ;). Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

She performed the winning song - but she didn't win
In the lead, the article wrongly states that Meyer-Landrut "won" the Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Which may be a popular assumption, but it's still wrong. This is a song contest, therefore it's the song (Satellite) and the songwriters who won this ESC. The trophy of course also went to the two songwriters, not Meyer-Landrut. See this for more: "At the end of the programme, the winner is declared as the song with the most points. The winner receives, simply, the prestige of having won—although it is usual for a trophy to be awarded to the winning songwriters, and the winning country is invited to host the event the following year." I think the lead should be accordingly corrected. Certainly the performers play an important role, and they gain the attention, but it's as if the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature wasn't the author but the actor reading the winning text. --Catgut (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, i just does not agree with you. KzKrann (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for your suggestion. However, I think you are being overly nit-picky here. I just randomly checked the articles on the winning artists in the five years before Meyer-Landrut and all of them explicitly said something like "artist soandso won the ESC". Plus, we have a category at the bottom of the page: "Winner of the ESC". Also, I think your comparison with literature doesn't really hold water. A song is a lot more closely linked to the perfoming artist than literature is with persons reading it. To put it differently: A performance is part of the song and a song essentially cannot come to life without it being performed. This is not true for literature. Everyone can read literature on his/her own, there is no need for a performance, its impact can unfold without any actor reading it to us. On the other hand, imagine "reading" music, i.e. notes, tunes, chords from a piece of paper. It would require some fantasy to draw pleasure from that alone. If the contest was really what you depicted it as, we would have no performances and juries would just contemplate over written music in quiet to then announce a "winning song". Long story short, the artists and their achievement are inextricably linked to the success of the songs and even the songs themselves. Their performance is part of what makes the song complete. Therefore I find it totally legitimate to call the artists winners just as well as the songwriters and songs. Janfrie1988 (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with your emphasizing the role of singers. Yet this particular contest is a song contest, and the trophy goes to the winning songwriters. So we either stick to the facts, or we just reflect what may be popular belief. Sticking to the facts would mean: Lena is the performer of the winning song, but she is not the winner of this contest. She could only have won it if she had also (co-)written the song. The category "winner of the ESC" should of course remain, not because she was the winner, but because she performed the winning song and is sort of part of the whole package. But saying she won the ESC is simply wrong. --Catgut (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is simply true ;). Please consider my argument. I did not just emphasise the role of singers but argued that their performance is part of the song, therefore their perfomance is part of the win, therefore they also win. A song cannot win the ESC without being performed. Without a perfomrance it is only part of itself, i.e. written on paper.


 * Apart from that theoretical argument we are delving far too much into Original research here. As long as you don't provide a reliable source for your claim it is quite marginal what you yourself think to have found out on logical grounds. As for the current version: I have about a dozen sources handy that say she won the contest. WP:V even explicitly says that what matters in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). To be honest, what you do seems a lot like Original Research to me - merely based on the fact that the contest is called "song contest". Please prove me wrong and cite the official Eurovision rules or something that clearly state that the artist does not win the contest. However, Imo even a rule passage on the song being the winner would not be enough if it does not state the song to be the winner exclusively, since we have far too many sources claiming that the artists actually won the contest. If you think you have found such a strong source we will have to talk again and possibly alter every second Eurovision-related article on Wikipedia. If you don't find such a source, well, then Meyer-Landrut winning the Eurovision is - for all that is relevant for Wikipedia - simply true ;). Janfrie1988 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Postscript: The archived official ESC website (actually the Wikipedia section you originally based your argument on uses this as reference) says that the artists actually win the contest. See here, for instance. Just an example: "AND THE WINNER IS: Lys Assia (Switzerland) with her song "Refrain"." (emphasis in original). If you check the Wikipedia article on Refrain, it says that Assia was the performer but did not participate in the writing. *shrugs* I think this should be settled now. The artists winning the ESC is not a popular myth. Thank you for your input, however. Janfrie1988 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the situation remains that the exact answer to the question is nowhere to be found. The official website (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/home) is a joke, it provides for a lot of popular fan stuff, but doesn't bother to present the exact rules and the definition of "winner of the ESC". It doesn't anwer the one simple, but key question: Who is actually entitled to call himself "winner of the ESC"? That's absolutely amazing! Compare that to the exact rules of the annual Academy Awards, where you know exactly what's going on. I mean, it's nice that we have all those media reports telling us who won the Oscar for best foreign language film, but it's even nicer to have official sources to tell us that, and the reasons what picture is or isn't a foreign language film. In the case of the ESC, it seems as if nobody wanted to know the exact facts. Fine, but in this encyclopedia we have the above cited article telling us that the song wins and the songwriters get the trophy, and at the same time we have the articles about performers said to have been the winners of the ESC. We can't have it both ways. Who knows, maybe all of them are winners, the performers, the songwriters, and the respective country. No problem with that, but we simply have to know, and we can't have two contradictory articles. This is by no means original research, it's just research. --Catgut (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, it is mindblowingly simple: We have no (!) source that indicates that the performers are not the winners (a wikipedia article is not a source. And, as I said, the source for the claim in the article cited by you claims the performers are winners) and probably hundreds that say that they are, I know of dozens for Lena alone. See the references for this article, if you don't believe me. To be honest: From our standpoint it is quite easy: The performers are winners. We have enough sources for that. Janfrie1988 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're talking about sources, so where's the official source that she is the winner of this year's contest? Where's the official source that she's the only winner? Where is an official source for the current rules? Catgut (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The presenters stated the fact themselfs when they said Lena you are the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest, and when they said, Here she comes the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest 2010.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, and according to the ESC rules (where are they?) the presenters are what exactly? The official spokespersons? Catgut (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, noone claimed that she is the "only" winner. Well, I certainly didn't. Please check. I wrote earlier: "Therefore I find it totally legitimate to call the artists winners just as well as the songwriters and songs." (emphasis added). The songwriters are winners just as well. As the song is. Consequently, the article on "Satellite" correctly says "It ["Satellite"] won the Eurovision Song Contest...". Secondly, you want sources. They are in the article. There are even inline citations. Please have a look. The specific claim that Meyer-Landrut won Eurovision is distinctly sourced. I am not sure what you mean by "official source". I guess any reliable source would do (why shouldn't it?). Anyway, [http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=18063&_t=GERMANY+WINS%2C+SEE+FULL+RESULTS! esctoday.com] ("After all 39 countries had voted, it was Lena from Germany who was the lucky winner...") and the archived official esc website ("AND THE WINNER IS: Lys Assia (Switzerland) with her song "Refrain"." (emphasis in original, I also mentioned this earlier but obviously you decided to just blatantly ignore it). What you say ("It doesn't anwer the one simple, but key question") is simply untrue. The former specifically says she won, the latter specifically mentions performers without any part in the writing as winners. How are they supposed to make it any clearer?

Besides that, here is a list of some random sources beyond the official ones that also specifically say Meyer-Landrut won. Just to name the most widely known ones that are in English:
 * 1) CNN German singer wins Europe's biggest song competition
 * 2) Huffington Post Germany's Lena wins 2010 Eurovision Song Contest
 * 3) Reuters German teenager wins Eurovision contest
 * 4) Deutsche Welle Dossier: Germany's Lena wins Eurovision 2010
 * 5) BBC Germany wins Eurovision Song Contest as UK comes last ("The moment Germany's Lena won the Eurovision Song Contest")

We have a claim here (the performers also win Eurovision) that is probably better sourced than 99% of all claims there are on Wikipedia. I honestly do not get what you base your very vocal but apparently very unsubstantiated objections on. Why do you even doubt the overwhelming number of sources that back up our claim very clearly and specifically? Do you have any source that would justify just disregarding CNN, BBC, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, the Huffington Post and the current and archived official Eurovision websites? Or are we just arguing for the sake of arguing? The matter is certainly settled for me, and as long as there is nothing substantial that challenges all the sources we have I will certainly make no effort to continue this discussion. Again, thanks for your input, but this is leading nowhere. Janfrie1988 (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Voice acting
Meyer-Landrut will be a voice-actress in the German movie Sammys Abenteuer alongside German actors Matthias Schweighöfer and Axel Stein.(Source ) Do you think this is notable in the English Wikipedia? Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Picked up by several news sources, first apparently significant role in a movie, first career step after the ESC – might become trivial down the line, but IMO warrants a mention at this point. Cheers, Amalthea  23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not a German movie, it's the German version of Around the World in 50 Years (where Lena dubbed the German voice for the original actress Isabelle Fuhrman) --Melly42 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for those corrections, and I did some too. As this is the English language wiki, we use the English movie titles for all movies, and we do not introduce titles from other languages when the English title is also the original one. Then of course, this is about an animated movie, so all the characters are dubbed in the original version. Isabelle Fuhrman won't be seen on the screens. That's why Meyer-Landrut doesn't provide the voice for Fuhrman, but for the character in the movie. Then of course, there will be no 'German version' of this movie, there will just be a newly dubbed language recording added to the track. And finally, isn't all that a bit premature? The movie doesn't even have its own wiki article yet. Let us please not forget WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Catgut (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your corrections ;). I think it is okay to include this fact per Amalthea . Regards, Janfrie1988 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nudity
What's this story RTL published with a full frontal nude video of her in a swimming pool ?? Was it some kind of German Big Brother program ?? http://www.rtl.de/cms/information/rtl-exclusiv/lena_meyer-landrut-pool.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.133.145.238 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing particularly interesting. Show was a Rescue 911 spin-off where she was IIRC topless in a swimming pool. Amalthea  06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen it on YouTube and it's very interesting :) Definitely worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-encyclopedic gossip. There is no fact involved worth mentioning. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just gossip shit, not worth mentioning. And, she was nude and exposed for about 0,2 seconds in the video... KzKrann (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Once more, we are not a promotion platform for yellow press silliness. Janfrie1988 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned that german television ist very liberal in showing nude people, You can see nude persons in about every second television film. 93.231.140.230 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Apperared nude on german project "Naked People" under number 30, now removed from list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.12.124 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)