Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Eurovision Song Contest 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
images
don't we have images of the acts this year? there are only pictures of the russian, spanish and ucranian acts :S and the contest was almost one month ago. Will we have the classifications map like last year? i would like to do it, but my computer doesn't open the commons maps (the ones that we use in eurovision articles, and the countries articles, etc) cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Scoreboards
Please could you check the scoreboards for semi-final 1 and the Final. They all show the names of the countries apart from the UK which for some reason is stipulated as a RED BLOCK. As I'm UK resident myself; I find this quite insulting; and I'm sure other people from the UK viewing the page would feel the same. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Everything looks to be in order to me. Maybe it's a browser issue? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- The breakdown of scores on the scoreboard. Both columns for the UK are a red Block, with no writing on them whatsoever. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
- Just checked and its the file Image:ESCUnitedKingdomJ.svg which shows as a RED BLOCK like this (
) only with no text. (Pr3st0n (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
- Well it looks like all the others to me. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok not sure why it shows a Red Block at my side then. It doesn't do it on any of the others only the UK one. Would anyone know if this is a common problem for Virgin Media users? Only asking, as I've recently switched ISP. Stephen; I'll take a screen shot and and email it to you, so that you can see that it does show a Red Block, and that I ain't hallucinating. (Pr3st0n (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
- It looks OK to me, too (Glasgow, bethere.co.uk, for what it's worth). Pr3st0n, it occurs to me that it may be a cached image - try doing a "hard refresh" of your browser (depends on the browser you use, but I think it's "Control" + "F5" on Firefox). That'll force your browser to download the image again, bypassing any cached files it has - hopefully that'll fix the problem. If not, I'm going to suggest you take your mushrooms back to the supermarket and complain ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok not sure why it shows a Red Block at my side then. It doesn't do it on any of the others only the UK one. Would anyone know if this is a common problem for Virgin Media users? Only asking, as I've recently switched ISP. Stephen; I'll take a screen shot and and email it to you, so that you can see that it does show a Red Block, and that I ain't hallucinating. (Pr3st0n (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
- Well it looks like all the others to me. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Czech Republic's "Nul Points"
Would it be an idea to put the Czech Republic and its voting line in Red to indicate its "nul points"? Adamml13 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Having no points is nothing special, and besides red does not go well with blue links. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Commentators and spokespersons
Please note that I have started a discussion on this content issue once again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#What to do with commentators and spokespersons. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like that may have been archived. Note that List_of_Commentators_for_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009 was nominated for deletion and the result was a merge with this article. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Jury votes for the Final now available
The Jury votes for the Final are now available at [1]. Not quite sure how we want to handle this. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The full results are now out on this page from the EBU. The full results should probably be included in the article though this is the first time this system is been used so I am not sure how to implement it, another table perhaps? Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Azeris who voted for Armenia are questioned by the police
More sources if needed
- Azerbaijanis face Eurovision probe
- EBU launches Azerbaijan investigation
- Azeri out of tune with Eurovision vote for Armenia
- Azeri witchhunt over Eurovision votes
--Lida Vorig (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Found one more
--Lida Vorig (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Dealing with criticism and controversy
Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Dealing with criticism and controversy for some discussion about this issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- The addition of this tag looks like drive-by tagging to me, an attempt to POV edit an article through unjustly casting dispertions on a section of it. You have given no justification here for the inclusion of the tag. You cannot just tag an article with the words "may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject" without explaining why you think the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. If you are just objecting to the use of the word "controversies" then suggest alternative wording (such as "Controversial incidents" perhaps). Meowy 14:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought the tag was self-explanatory, and there is no requirement in policy or guidelines which says you have to post on the talk page every time you tag an article. I did also give an explanation in the edit summary, but I have posted a more detailed explanation at WT:ESC now given that appears not to be enough. I will also note that is a soft tag which only gives suggestions, I could have posted a more strong one such {{POV}}, in which expecting a talk page explanation is more reasonable. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did not want to assume bad faith reasons behind your edits and your insertion of the tag. However, in the light of your continued insertion of the tag, and the continued absence of a justification for its insertion, I think it is both safe and appropriate to assume bad-faith reasons. The tag has the wording "this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject" and you have repeatedly refused to say in what what way you think the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. You claim that "there is no requirement in policy or guidelines which says you have to post on the talk page every time you tag an article". That is a fundamental distortion of how an article should be edited. If you do not post your justifications for placing a tag, if nobody knows why you have placed the tag there, then how can the tag ever be removed? But I suspect you know that - which is why you have tagged the article using that obscure tag rather than the more often seen pov tag. Meowy 02:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought the tag was self-explanatory, and there is no requirement in policy or guidelines which says you have to post on the talk page every time you tag an article. I did also give an explanation in the edit summary, but I have posted a more detailed explanation at WT:ESC now given that appears not to be enough. I will also note that is a soft tag which only gives suggestions, I could have posted a more strong one such {{POV}}, in which expecting a talk page explanation is more reasonable. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Camaron Christopher, what exactly you don't like about the section? Lida Vorig (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Check the link that Camaron provided. He explained his concerns in much detail there. Also, it would be good if editors posting here minded WP:AGF. Repeated bad faith assumptions about other editors are not helpful. Grandmaster 11:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Camaron has explained NOTHING. He has provided NO JUSTIFICATION for tagging the article with an allegation that it might not be presenting a neutral point of view. I will ask him one last time to provide a justification. And to provide it here, not on some project talk page. I have already explained why, until he provides that proper justification, it is reasonable to assume bad faith is behind his repeated insertion of the tag. Meowy 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Norway's points record
I wish to tidy up the bit on Norway's points record, pointing out that the previous record of 292 by Finland was set in 2006 - and I have a more reliable source for this than the present Daily Mail source, this being http://www.sidewaysnews.com/arts-culture/no-fairytale-ending-uk-blogger. However, after seeing an Attention! message when previously trying to edit this page (in the end I abandoned this edit), I worry that if I do try to do this bit of tidying up, it might be deemed to be in breach of something and I might get blocked from editing as a result. Does anyone know what is the best way of going about it? Bluebird207 (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't be blocked for making good faith edits, but discussing here is always a good thing. Playing Devil's advocate, why is your source a more reliable source than the Daily Mail? (For those unfamiliar with the UK press, the Mail is a major UK newspaper - tabloid in format, like most UK papers these days, but with a reputation midway between "true tabloids" and those papers that were traditionally broadsheets). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail source merely says that Norway's 387 points was the highest ever score - no mention at all of the previous record, quite unlike my source, which states pretty much everything about it. Bluebird207 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)