Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Since the editing war is over.. I would suggest something... How about if we add the composers of the entries? I was looking at the 2007 spanish version of this page and they have it underneath the title of the songs.. That might be a good idea.. What you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talkcontribs) 08:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think so. I don't think its something that should necessarily be on the main ESC page. Each song has its own article usually right in the table, where it mentions composers (dedicated page), the country pages usually mention composers, and so do the artist pages. So thats 3 pages that mention the composers. One of the biggest thing leaning me toward no is the individual song pages already listing the info.
On another note, what does everyone think about the national selection dates and names of the National Finals? I was OK with listing the selection dates, but realized it is information that serves no real long term goal (Wikipedia:Recentism, and that would be eventually taken off after each country chose its song. But now that the Nation Selection names are added too, I think thats going a little over board. Especially since the individual country pages are practically dedicated to that. Greekboy (talk)
I agree with getting rid of the national finals and dates, but first we need to fix the links so that the countries ( Andorra for example) link to the 2008 pages rather than the general Eurovision ones. That should make it easier to find detailed info on the finals, composers, dates etc. etc. Chwech 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've created {{inesc08}} for use in the table, but I've held off on adding it to the article because there are still quite a few redlinked articles. Chwech 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that rather than having composers on the table, have a link to a page where composers can be seen. --Robotico2 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2
I have set {{inesc08}} across the entire article now, as the links are all blue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we move {{Entries of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008}} to the bottom of the article then? It's fairly redundant now where it is. Chwech 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
In previous years the template has been where it is now, but this article is different due to the change in format - so yes I would support moving it to the bottom if there is agreement here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would actually like for it to stay at the top. It's much easier to get to for the average reader in my opinion. Greekboy (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, it just seems unnecessary to have the individual articles linked to three times in three sections. At least, by moving the template to the bottom, we are spacing them out a bit. Chwech 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess, but then again the National Final info will dissapeear from the table soon anyway right? EDIT: I thought you ment something else. What about moving the "Pot" stuff down, or around somewhere? Just a suggestion. Greekboy (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Every year before the draw is done... The names of the national finals and dates appear on the table.. However, after the draw for the running order, this two columms dissappear and the POINTS and RANKS replace them.. So, don't need to rush.. You've already taken way too much information.. Maybe next year, you would just want the NAME OF THE COUNTRIES and thats it.. I don't know.. the 2007 page worked so well.. I don't understand why we cannot follow its patterns.. Last year, we had all the dates for the national finals including important details about it.. The individual pages appeared after the songs were selected.. But it appears that nothing is important right now.. The name of the composers of the songs is way more important than national finals, spokepersons, etc.. The winner of the Eurovision Song Contest is NOT ONLY the performer, the composers also get the prize... That's why there are usually three trophies (one for the singer, the lyricist and the composer).. However they always seem to be ignored.. Anyways, the point is.. You don't need to rush on taking off the national finals... They will dissappear... And if you're talking about redundancy or whatever and THAT EVERY INFORMATION OF THE SONG IS IN ITS INDIVIDUAL ENTRY PAGE.. Then we should also take off the name of the artists.. So you cannot state that you are gonna delete something due to redundancy or whatever you wanna call it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talkcontribs) 07:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What you say about the 2 columns disappearing falls right into Wikipedia:Recentism. Another comment about including the composers, the official Eurovision site usually dosnt include them in their list of participants, but rather just the country, singer, and song. I'm still at No with this one.... That being said, I also dont think you should create a new sub-section in the discussion to discuss the same thing being discussed in the sub section above this. This is why I will merge them and rename the sub section in the discussion, if that is ok. Also, sometimes your posts really confuse me. Before you were saying that we should change stuff from 2007, and now in this post you say we should follow the patterns of 2007 article. Also Tony0106, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment.Greekboy (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I was just wondering, seeing as how the new sublogo has been released, I just wondered if it could be put above the official logo in the infobox (to see what I mean, see the 2006 article).It can be found at this link > [1]. Also, the new logo is the confluence one with the musical note and coloured liquid, just incase you don't know what I mean. --Robotico2 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

I think the sub-logo should wait, only because we havnt seen exactly how they will put it together with the official logo. If I remember, they are going to mix it somehow, and its supposed to look different. I think Eurovision.TV says something about it being revealed soon. Greekboy (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OH, never mind. It was revealed today, and someone already put it up. Greekboy (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I am changed the class rating for this article from Start to B. Although I am involved in editing it, I think this must be B-class by now with plenty of references, pictures, and content. Please say if you disagree. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

High-definition broadcast

Shouldn't the section be after International Broadcasts or in that section? I mean have all the broadcast things in the same section. Greekboy (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done, yes that is probably a better place - it certainly was not right with participants though. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations for verification banner

What exactly in the article needs to be sourced to get the banner off? It looks pretty well sourced to me. Can someone familiar with it put a fact tag next to information needed to be sourced, if any? The only one I see if the High-Def broadcast. Greekboy (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that tag in December as a lot of unsourced speculative content was been added to the Participants section frequently, now the notes section is gone and citation is improved, I have been bold and taken the tag off. By the look of it, the main content remaining that is not referenced and is likely to be challenged is the international broadcasts section. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-participants section is back

I have noticed a form of the non-participants section has been restored to the article. Note previous discussion on this at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008/Archive 3#Non participating countries:, where consensus was reached to remove this section. The main reason is that it should be covered in other articles; I also have to question how encyclopaedic some content in this section is - and so it probably needs a clean-up. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Austria, which is specifically a 2008 withdrawal, I would agree that the section adds very little to this article. Most of it is very general; we've been hearing the same things about the Vatican, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg (to name three) for years now, there's no new info there. Chwech 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above. It's just stating rumors really. Greekboy (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys,I added that non participants section,because of the way how the 2006 ESC page is created I thought we should mention something in the article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Map showing 1st and 2nd Semi participants

Since it is hard to visualize which country is in which semifinal, don't you think it would be better if the map was updated with the necessary information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, if Chwech, the map author, could make the changes that would be great. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There's already one on Commons: here. I'm not so sure about it to be honest, I think it looks a bit messy. Chwech 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the colours might need to be changed, ie not use blue for countries, and colour coding look a bit more logical (such as different shades of green for semi-finalists) as on the current map. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if I recall correctly when I had made a map I think back in 2005 or 2006 I was told that blue wasnt allowed for countries by wikipedia. I think because blue is only reserved for water. Also with the current map, is it just me, or are the Greens for "Semi-finalists that participated in the 2007 contest and Debuting countries (semi-finalists)." too similar, even to tell apart? Greekboy (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It probably isn't just you, you're not the first person to say that about a map I've made, actually. I'm willing to make a new map (using colours that stand out more) but I'm a bit busy at the moment. I'll get round to it. Chwech 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done it, but I left out the withdrawals (just classed Austria as a non-participant) and I didn't show which finalists are showing which semi. Just keeping it simple. Going completely off-topic, the Serbian final's been postponed according to—would it be best to remove the date for that completely? Chwech 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Until a further date is announced, then yes. As for Austria, you could always put a little cross symbol and a note at the bottom like in previous years. Other than that, great job.Greekboy (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The map looks good to me, though it would not display properly in my browser unless I cleared the cache for some reason. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbia national selection process

When is this going to be? On the Wikipedia page it says it's going to be tomorrow 'one day after the semi finals on 19 February 2008'. Is this information untrue, or not? -Breadsticks.rock (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Map of countries

Why did someone delete the map i did for this Article, and revert it back to the old one? It was perfectly fine, and thus contained Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Kosovo as non-participants (which the old one didn't, for some reason.) The current one is correct and most likely will be until May 24. Breadsticks.rock (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dzordzm (talk · contribs) reverted the map to a earlier version, the reason was Is there a consensus?, which was not unreasonable as there was not. To be honest, I have to say I prefer the overall design of Chwech's version which has a higher resolution available and I think the overall colour choices look better - the only thing that needs to be possibly corrected is Kosovo, which can easily be done. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen a decent-quality blank map of Europe with Kosovo yet, but when we have one it should be easy. And Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco are listed as non-participants in this map: I just haven't discriminated between those that are EBU members and those that aren't (Liechtenstein aren't, for example). Chwech 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I based the image on this image from the Eurovision Song Contest (main page) and just coloured it in accordingly. It's not blank, but i'd use it as a base. Breadsticks.rock (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added Kosovo, using Image:Kosovo in Europe.png (the same map as the current one) as a base. Chwech 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice, but in my opinion the stars stating the debuting countries shouldn't be there. The information on the debuting countries and withdrawing countries is in the information box at the top of the page. If you are going to do that, you should really put a † on Austria, as they withdrew. Breadsticks.rock (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question Is there a consensus? is still well and alive. The question about whether Kosovo is to be included as a separate entity on maps has not been resolved Wikipedia-wide, as far as I know. Specific to ESC, RTK is not a full member of EBU [2] and it is not clear whether they will be admitted [3] and hence whether they will be allowed to take part separately in any contest (certainly not this year) or officially treated as part of Serbia. My feeling is that in these situations it is better to go with the previous status quo until we have a change in RTK status. --Dzordzm (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree; I was going to bring this up myself. Although as far as I know, the EBU was actually involved in setting up RTK. Chwech 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just clarifying: I'm not sure about having Kosovo in the map until an overall consensus is established, but I'll hold off on reverting until others have commented. Chwech 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The map should be as EBU recognizes it and that means without Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The EBU have been frustratingly silent on this, so I've coloured Kosovo in using two colours as a compromise (after all, there are plenty of EBU members on both sides, and by the looks of things the Union has no official position). If a consensus can be found on this, I would be happy to change it, but until then I am not, because so far re-uploading the image over and over has got us nowhere. My two cents: I lean towards removing Kosovo mainly per Dzordzm's points above. Chwech 00:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

About Macedonia

The official name for MACEDONIA at the European Broadcasting Union is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, shortform: FYR Macedonia. I've noticed there's been people changing it to "South Macedonia" WHAT IS THAT? I know some countries recognize it as the Republic of Macedonia, that is fine. But we should stick with what the EBU says, and they gave them the name of 'FYR Macedonia' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Greece has been changed to South Macedonia, it in the EBU it is FYR Macedonia. Anyway the page is now protected now, so should be fine. --AxG @ talk 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have always been under the impression consensus is to use the names used in the Eurovision Song Contest in the article, hence why FYR Macedonia is appropriate. Country names however are very sensitive/political issues at times and it appears that one user that has registered under the name of [[::User:Љубе|Љубе]] ([[::User talk:Љубе|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Љубе|contribs]]) objects to the use of the name FYR Macedonia and has being engaging in disruption under his/her own account, and highly likely under a large number of IP sock puppets recorded at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Љубе. While this user appears to be in a content dispute, a large number of edits he/she appears to have made do meet the definition the vandalism.
I think semi-protection of this article for now is not unreasonable, however until recently this article was hardly ever vandalised and many IPs were making constructive edits to the article - which makes me wonder if 6 months semi-protection is really appropriate. I cannot protect/unprotect articles I am involved in, so after a short time, if there is no further disruption, I might think about requesting unprotection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Six months duration for the protection was not actually my intent—I meant to protect it until June: shortly after the contest. I'll fix it in a minute.
The vandalism appears to surround names for countries. Is it feasible to make the article provide alternate names side-by-side with the contest's "official" names? Maybe that would decrease the desire to alter the article by those who disagree. It looks like there are several positive contributions by anons; it's a shame to prevent them helping. —EncMstr 19:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be done, but how would it be done? Would it be (FYR) Macedonia or FYR Macedonia / Republic of Macedonia or something else? It might look a little odd and further more Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision is looking for standardisation. If the name(s) used were changed, it has really got to be done for every single Eurovision Song Contest article - plus for things like templates and article names it really can only be one or the other. Given that this appears to be only one user causing the recent issues, and this has never been a really significant issue before - is it really justified? Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ignorant of the naming issues. (Except as a tourist where I'm frequently annoyed by places—for example Firenze—having a different name in almost every language.) It would then seem to be a "global" problem, and not something easily or likely to be resolved here. —EncMstr 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, semi-protection will at least end the use of a large collection of IPs this person appears to be using to edit this article. If (s)he will continue, it has to be with a established account, which might help editors encourage him/her to discuss the concerns here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please no hyphenated names - FYROM is FYROM in the EBU, I find this naming dispute pretty stupid and my country recognizes Macedonia under its preferred name anyway, but since this article deals with the ESC, we should use the names as per EBU. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record the same issue seems to be happening at F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest and FYR Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, and also there are plans to write this name usage into the manual of style at WP:MOSMAC. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland language

Should all those languages be listed, or should it just be English with a note next to it like Malta? I thought it was determined from previous years that songs with just a couple words in a different language dosnt really constitute that language to be listed. (like 1 or 2 words). That seems the case with this song, as it is primarily in English with a couple of words in different languages. What does everyone else think? Greekboy (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely just English with a note. A c'est la vie and a misspelt title do not constitute a French-language song. Chwech 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's how I did it originally, but someone changed it...--Robotico2 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes it was changed by a couple of IPs, and got lost amid all the toing and froing over Macedonia. I'm changing it back. Chwech 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with changing it back, its good to have a note but listing languages hardly mentioned in the song at the same level as the primary language of the song is misleading. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If quite large parts were sung in different languages, then i wouldn't personally note it down in the references. But, as it's only phrases, then it's best to just list the main language as English. Breadsticks.rock (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnish Commentator

Commentator for this years Eurivision for Finland is Jaana Pelkonen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add, but the section requires sources. So, do you have a source? --AxG @ talk 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Janna hosted her last television show for at least a while on the Finnish final last week according to esctoday as she's doing another career, so it's highly unlikely she'll be commentating this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

National Selections

Does anyone oppose to taking out the "National Selections" and "Selection Dates" out of the Semi-Final and Final tables a little early? There are only a couple more left to be chosen, and you could easily click on the name for more information. If not, then we could just leave it until the last chooses on March 11. Greekboy (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well no one responded so I didn't change anything. But now its March 10, and all the countries except San Marino (which chooses tom.) and Sweden (March 15) have chosen their songs. So I will take out the section since it's not really needed anymore. If anyone disagrees and thinks we should wait 5 more days, just revert it. Also the table will be changed again on March 17, which is the date the draw will be done for the running order. Greekboy (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Semi-Final" or "Semi-final"?

Sorry to sound pedantic, but which is it? I know "Semi-Final" looks better but per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Section_headings section headers should be sentence case. It's a minor issue, really. Chwech 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As you said, it should prob. be "Semi-final" because of WP:MOS. Greekboy (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


I think that the Montenegrin singer sings in Montenegrin because he pronounces the word "kuća" like "kutja" instead of "[kucha]". In Montenegro the Montenegrin language is officialy recognised and I think that the problem was if the singer want to give emphasis to the fact he's more Montenegrin or Serbian... but I think a Serbian won't pronounce "kuća" like that. User:Skafa/Sign 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as kucha in Serbian. Only kuća. --Avala (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Zdravo bre! Yes, I know there is only kuća in Serbian: I wrote "kucha" (into brackets) because not all the people can read the letter ћ or ć. I think you wanted to make evident that the Montenegrin language doesn't exist. I didn't affirm that the Montenegrin language exists, but in the table "citation needed" was added and so I wrote that I think that Stefan Filipović wanted to put in evidence the Montenegrin pronounciation of the letter ć. If you hear the song you could give me an answer: do you pronounce "kuća" like that? Well, all right bre? :P Ćao (yes, there is no chao in Serbian :) User:Skafa/Sign 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Map mistake

Excuse me, on the map, the Greek islands of Corfu, Paxi (northern Ionian sea) and Symi (Dodecanese, southeastern Aegean sea) are not coloured in the same shade of green as the rest of Greece. Please, correct this mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, about to upload now. Chwech 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


As the Eurovision Song Contest is traditionally a contest between broadcasters representing countries, I am of the belief that the list of broadcasters should not be removed from this article. It takes up little space, does not add nonsense to the article and does not come under vandalism on Wikipedia. I quote from the article, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles., I believe my addition is none of these things. Additionally it states that any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is also not vandalism. Efforts to remove such a column should be stopped before an entirely unecessary edit war breaks out. GTlikeitmatters (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point regarding the contest being between broadcasters: which is why there is a column for them in List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. However, I disagree with placing them in this article, because they rarely change from year to year, and so having them in each year's article seems a slight waste of space - particularly when the table is busy enough as it is. Incidentally, I don't think anyone's accusing you of vandalism. Chwech 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the broadcaster thing was discussed before too I believe. You can click on the country in the article in many places and easily see the broadcaster. So I have taken them out again. Greekboy (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a mention of "official partner"?

"Cosmetics supplier Wella will become the official partner...". Do we need this free ad? If so, earlier Eurovisions had sponsors too. Peltimikko (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what was wrong with it to be honest, it was sourced and in a encyclopaedic format. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi Final Broadcasts

Can we have a table to show which countries will be broadcasting both semis and the ones that will only be broadcasting the one they have to vote in - not every participating nations are showing both. Twintrees (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New idea

We should have a column "Music genre" in the participating countries tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcina (talkcontribs) 22:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not, for obvious reasons. In case reasons are not obvious, see WP:OR, WP:V etc. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Does any one object if I (or another admin) unprotect this article as it has been protected for several weeks now and the issue that originally resulted in the page being semi-protected seems to have been resolved, and many anon users were making constructive edits before protection with minimal long-term vandalism. I will let the protecting admin know of this note. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with it; as said before it was never going to need protecting for so many months anyway. Chwech 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, the article has now been unprotected. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)