Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Luxembourg

Read this... It sounds a confirmation, not the oficialy one, but it's now certain that Luxembourg is coming back :D João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have the previous statement from Oikotimes as a reference (plus an ESCToday reference), and they are basically saying in this post that everyone ignored their last post. Nothing new here as far as I can see. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I spoke because there are many wiki with this reference, and the title doesn't have an interrogation mark, but I only wanted to no other opinion, thanks João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As per previous discussion it has been decided that at the present time Oikotimes has not reached even semi-reliable status, thus information sourced to this site should be used with very big caution and in best case scenario Eurovision pages of Wikipedia should not contain links to this website at all. Thus, confirmation of participation given purely by this website in a very amateurish styled post should not be considered reliable enough. AlexeyU (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What I have read, Luxembourg will decide if they will go to Oslo in mid October or November this year (2009). So I think that we wait until we know what they will decide. /Hollac16 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is a better reference (ESCToday) I shall remove the Oikotimes reference. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Romania

So they're on the map, but I don't see them on the list or any references to them. Are they in 2010? Zu Anto 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Romania has been removed from the map by an user on Commons, try to refresh the page. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg on the map

Why is Luxembourg on the map ??? -- 10:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Luxembourg has been removed after checking the source: "By mid October, early November the national broadcaster of Luxembourg, CLT (member of the RTL group) will announce its participation and the plans for the 2010 selection." -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 13:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Andorra

Hi there! Andorra hasn't withdraw, their withdrawal is possible, but they haven't do it so far. If you read the notice, you'll find that the final decission of the withdrawal will be done by the actionists of RTVA, which haven't said anything yet.--EuroLuis (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Hello, as I don't have an account here I can't edit this article, since it's only available for now to people with at least 4 days account. So I'm saying on this page that Azerbaijan should be removed from the "confirmed countries" list, at least for now. That's because the EBU still invastigate the accusations against it in regards to try preventing voting for Armenia at the 2009 ESC. The ongoing investigation about Azerbaijan is even written at the continue of this 2010 ESC article. So it even highlights further the appearance of Azerbaijan on the "confirmmed countries" - as contridicting - & hence Azerbaijan has to be removed from the "confirmed countries". 80.230.188.2 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What I have read about this conflict, EBU can not do anything to stop Azerbaijan to be in ESC 2010. They have just given them a warning that this may not happened again. So I belive that we can put Azerbaijan back on confirmed countries again. /Hollac16 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Why has been editing for this article disabled ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain't An Angel (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected due to excessive unsourced material being added by unregistred users. The protection is due to expire tommorow. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be wise to keep it semi-protected a little longer? We all know that as soon as the protection is lifted, all those unregistereed users are just going to bombard the page again with non-sourced edits. (Pr3st0n (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

I don't think I should alter the protection settings as I am a regular article editor and hence "involved". If you think the protection should be extended I would recommend making a request at WP:RFPP so an independent admin can decide. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see both side to it, so either way is OK I suppose. Besides, there are plenty of us on the project team who can revert any edits that unregistered users add. Which reminds me, I was going to do some more background work into the Kosovo thing. I have noticed a lot of people keep bringing this subject up, week upon week. I feel like a roving reporter for WikiProject Eurovision doing some background checks - lol. Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a quiet time of year for Eurovision so I would hope we could manage without the page protected, and while the page is always higher maintenance when unprotected many IPs do make constructive edits. If I was the reviewing admin I would probably say let it unprotect for now, see what happens, and then request re-protection if it is found to be needed still. By the way, Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 has been created but has been PRODed, I am happy to let it get deleted as it does just seem to be speculation. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just paid a visit to the Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article, and I agree, it should be deleted for now, as Kosovo haven't yet confirmed their participation, nor have the EBU confirmed their membership approval. The slight confusion with this one though, as the EBU created RTK as per UN request. I would have thought that a station created by the EBU would have been granted EBU membership from day one. Wonder why the EBU didn't do this? (Pr3st0n (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

It's true all the speculations that are still going around Kosovo's future participation in Eurovision. So it's good that it doesn't appear on the "confirmed countries". But what about what I explained here yesterday about Azerbaijan? Why isn't anybody of the editors refers to what I wrote & also removes Azerbaijan from the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.187.219 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment because I didn't have an opinion on it at the time. I do think now reviewing the issue editors should tread carefully here, the sources do not actually say anything about Azerbaijan's participation being in doubt, they just say the issue is being "examined", so I have been close to raising issue with the current article wording as it almost original research. There is grounds to say the new sources about the investigation supersede the older sources confirming participation for Azerbaijan, but I do not really have any problem with Azerbaijan remaining listed until the EBU's decision comes through. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cahristopher, I wasn't talking specifically about you of-course, but to the general group of editors that follow this article. Anyway, like you said, there are new sources regarding Azerbaijan's participation. The latest source is on "ESCToday" website, that explains that the EBU will only decide in the next few days if it just give Azerbaijan a big fine to pay, but also might decide to keep it away from Eurovision 2010 (with possibilty to even ban it for up to 3 years). So it's simply not true to claim on the article here that it's already known now about Azerbaijan's confirmation.

& the problem is that if Azerbaijan will indeed be eventually banned, all the people that read about it's confirmation here in the past days, would get wrong information & than this article lose it's credibility. & you don't know if all those readers will come back to read here that Azerbaijan won't participate eventually (in case that's what EBU will decide), & hence keep thinking it will participate. I thought that "locking" this article to the editing of registered users only, is precisely to prevent writting speculations.

& I just have to add that I agree, that indeed most chances are that Azerbaijan will just get a fine & won't be banned, but you can never be sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.185.83 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the latest sources [1] do support what you are saying. I will remove the confirmation of Azerbaijan until the decision is published. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking of your time to read the source on "ESCToday". I'm glad that you see my point & that you are willing to remove Azerbaijan for now. Thanks :-) 80.230.185.83 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Armenia

It is requiring a lot of effort to maintain this article since it has been unprotected. There have already been a few attempts to introduce unverifiable/WP:OR possible debuts/withdrawals, which I have reverted as WP:CRYSTAL violation. I have however recycled the addition of an Andorra ref about the budget as that is verifiable material. I have accepted the removal of the Armenia ref by the way as the source does not seem to confirm participation, or at least I couldn't find where it did, though I did leave a note with the unregistered editor about the benefits of edit summaries. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

here you have the confirmation of Armenia [2], they only don't know if they will use an open or internal seleccion process, but they will be there ;) (this information is more down in the article João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How the hell can ESZKaz be reliable, one long page discussing two song contests, when really we need to get straight to the point, and they need sub-pages for every bit of news. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone added back Armenia as confirmed so I have added on the source, it is there on that long page though I needed to use my browser word find with the word "Armenia" to get to it, the content at face value is a confirmation. The RfC found ESCKaz to be semi-reliable, so I will personally "tolerate" it; other sources should be found if possible, though a source is probably better than no source at all. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't discuss prettyness of design. The current news page for ESCKaz is temporary one as the site is running extensive coverage of Junior Eurovision till November and short information on the adult show is exactly what is needed in this off-season. Don't see any reasons, why design of pages may reflect reliability, which is proven. Plus, there still are many links in Wikipedia article to Oikotimes and ESCTime which have been declared less reliable than ESCKaz. It is not time yet to return to the reliability discussion, which had produced it's outcome, it's time to follow this outcome. AlexeyU (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have ESZKaz has a reliable site... They don't discusse two shows in the same page, they write in english, and i think it's in russian. The only problem that they realy have is not separate the news João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fake references being added

Unfortunately this article has for a long time received edits from an unregistered user which adds sweeping claims to the article e.g. Kosovo is debuting, or Italy is returning, and then adds fake references to make it look legitimate. Example By fake references I mean copying and pasting another reference in the article and then sometimes replacing the correct title with a made up one to make the reference look legitimate, resulting in it being not until you click on the link the reference is shown to be fake. This damages the article and meets the definition of sneaky vandalism, however limited action can be taken (barring semi-protection as a last resort) as the user seems to be coming from a dynamic IP. I would recommend that editors check the links of all references added by users to keep the article at good quality and to keep disruption to a minimum. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Here, an esctoday.com news, appears a very interesting frase "...In a previous interview Katherine stated that she has already received a proposal from her record label in Poland to participate in the Polish preselection for 2010..." For me this sounds a confirmation of participation, and a use of a show to select the entry for Poland, what do you think? João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems stretching it a bit. She stated in a previous interview (the ESCToday article doesn't mention which) that she had received an offer from her record label (but it is not stated if she has accepted) to participate in pre-selection. It's an indicator that Poland probably will participate, but per WP:CRYSTAL it's not an official confirmation as far as I can tell. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ok ;) João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

www.eurowizja.org

I have removed the references (in Polish) from http://www.eurowizja.org for Poland and Estonia. The site is a blog fan-site and copies information from other blogs (source given for Poland) and cites Oikotimes (source given for Estonia) which explicitly states that these are rumours and that ETV has not confirmed. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Do we need the XX countries have confirmed sentence in the lead paragraph? Given the instability of the article by its vary nature at the moment, do we really need this in the lead when it is correctly mentioned later. I bring this up because I missed a change in the article from 24 to 22 when I removed Poland and Estonia because I was only looking for it once, and it was thanks to an anon IP that the second occurence was modified. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly I started that practice last year to try to get the article lead to summarise the article, as it should do per WP:LEAD, rather than be a spare section for information that could not fit elsewhere, which was what it was being used for before. Putting the total number of confirmed participants seemed to be a good way to summarise the confirmed participants section of the article. The downside is that the lead can get behind the rest of the article, though I try to keep an eye on the page to keep this to a minimum. The current lead could perhaps do with expansion as while it summarises the confirmed participants and venue, it does not mention other points such as withdrawing and returning countries which should probably also be briefly summarised there. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to ESC rules and investigation conclusions

I've read that the EBU are to change Eurovision Rules after Azerbaijan inquest, this can be verified here... [3]. Also Spain and Azerbaijan are to be fined following the EBU's investigations into these countries rule breaking at ESC 2009, this can also be verified here... [4]. Should we include these details into the ESC2010 main article? (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

The part about the new rules are relevant to the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 but I would also suggest the main Eurovision Song Contest as an additional article (it gives an overview of rules and regulations)

The part about the Spain and Azerbaijan being fined seems appropriate for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 as these are distinct after affects of that contest

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not see any verification on the fine for Azerbaijan and Spain there. It's just pure speculation, saying "If any punishment is to be made...". AlexeyU (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Struck bit about fine. The paragraph "The Eurovision Song Contest Reference Group that met in Oslo on 10th September did discuss Spain's breach of Eurovision Song Contest rules by broadcasting the semi final on a time delay, rendering a televote impossible. It has also concluded it's investigation into whether Azeri broadcaster Ictimai deliberately blocked or distorted the picture to blur out the voting number for Armenia." is of interest to the ESC 2009, although personally I'd prefer a statement from the EBU's website itself. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand Alexandr, that a full explanation appearing on the EBU website would be preferable. Although, upon reading the links I posted, from ESCToday.com, one of them does copy an alleged email that the EBU sent to ESCToday. Now I'm not sure if they sent one or not. But saying that, I cannot see a web company such as ESCToday printing something of that nature and it be false. If ESCT did, then no doubt the EBU would have law suits on their asses. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

'Tis but an utopian dream. That said, as it relates to the voting in the 2009 contest, it seems better placed there retrospectively than here which is a foreward-looking article. Also note the apostrophe struck out in its investigation. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Austria

There has been quite a bit of removal and reinsertion, followed by revertion of the return and participation of Austria. I take no credit for finding this article on ESCToday (thanks User:Sims2aholic8) but it is a pretty clear statement that Austria has not confirmed yet. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted both sides ;-) The "remove Austria"-side when it was uncited, and more recently the "add Austria"-side. Ah, the fun! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I also Agree. The first insertion about Austria, was given a source from ESCKaz. Which after I checked it out, I noticed it was referring to the ESCKaz Oslo 2010 - Fan Stand (ESCKaz's fan version of ESC, almost like OGAE). Then it was reinserted, only this time with a ref link from Oikotimes. Yet when I read the name of the user who added it there, it was the same name of the person on ESCKaz. I'm starting to have serious doubts about using Oikotimes as a reliable source of information. Anyone who joins that site as a fan/member, is permitted to add anything as a new story, and thus its pure fan-based speculation which people start to believe. ESCToday, only make their editorial via designated admin staff, who from what I gather obtain information directly from EBU execs. ESCToday, like us, only rely on official statements. There was an article I found on Oikotimes which stated that Kosovo had confirmed participation for 2010... however we all no that this is not true at this stage. I would personally ignore anything which is from Oikotimes. (Pr3st0n (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

You're saying 'like us'. Whom (what media) are you representing, Pr3st0n? Or you're meaning "Wikipedia" in US? AlexeyU (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add, that I could easily join the Oikotimes website as a member, and then publish an article, for example, "Penguins from the South Pole are participating at Oslo 2010 - confirmed", and people would start to believe it as they think oikotimes is reliable - yet everyone would know that Penguins wouldn't take part (ironic now if they do lol). (Pr3st0n (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

I added a short paragraph in the participants section about this Austria situation. Yet some user sneakily reworded it slightly, stating that "there is currently confusion over this story". If User:Regularcelery took time to read the link for this paragraph, to which I kindly added, they will have noticed in it that there is NO confusion. A partner site to ESCToday.com (eurovision-austria.com) had took liberty to contact Mr. Bjørn Erichsen, director of Eurovision TV, to find out the truth about Austria's comeback. Mr. Erichsen stated that the return of Austria, as well as Italy, Luxembourg and the debut of Liechtenstein is still an EBU's "hope". So where is the reference to "confusion" in that statement? (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

ESCKaz has recording of EBU press-conference footage from Minsk on 18th of September, which you can listen here [5] and you can clearly hear Eurovision TV director saying while speaking on the issue of new broadcasters taking part in Eurovision 2010: "Austria will be back in. We (EBU) have also reasons to believe Luxembourg and Liechtenstein (will also take part). Now we miss only Italy, but they will also will be back one day". So, clearly, there is a controversy/confusion as this is quite strong statement from Mr.Erichsen and not statement of "hope". I suggest that we should include this either in this article, or in article Austria in Eurovision Song Contest. Even if this statement is being denied by ORF now, it has been made at official press-conference of EBU, thus probably should be mentioned somewhere. AlexeyU (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Albeit its a voice recording at the end of the day. Nobody can 100% put their hand up and say they know exactly and can 100% identify the sound of Mr Erichsen's voice - unless of course you know him personally, then you will wholeheartedly know the sound of his voice. That recording could be people impersonating. Without solid proof to show it is him, then we cannot really hold this recording as solid proof of Austria coming back to the contest. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is exaggeration, when a reliable site publish a recording from press-conference, there are no reasons to think it might be false. You can see some older videos of Mr.Erichsen here [6] and it's clearly same person talking. There is also article by Belarus state news agency in Russian with the same quotation of Mr.Erichsen regarding the return of Austria. [7] I do not suggest using that as proof of Austria's return, however, I think it should be included in the article as "During EBU press-conference held in Minsk on 18th of September 2009 Eurovision TV's director Bjorn Erichsen has stated that "Austria will be back" in Eurovision Song Contest 2010 and EBU "has reasons to believe Luxembourg and Liechtenstein" will take part as well and "now we are only missing Italy". However, Austrian participation was later denied by Austrian broadcaster ORF when ORF program director Wolfgang Lorenz has stated in talk to local press [8] that "Competition has been ruined by regulations" and "we still be out next year and rather use budget for the other projects". AlexeyU (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will add that here [9] is part of Erichsen press-conference in video. Unfortunately, it is not full and doesn't include Austria statement, but you can clearly hear that voice of Erichsen and Russian translator sound the same. It's absolute exaggeration to state it may have been impersonated. AlexeyU (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But now we come back to reliability again - although ESCKaz say that this information is correct; we have on the other hand, another "reliable" site, stating that its a lie. Wikipedia is not a place to be providing speculations about something, we are here to provide evidence that is strongly back-up and true to the point. If information is starting to conflict, then it is better not to include, until we otherwise know for certain one way or the other. IMHO Mr Erichsen has come out with this statement, but then ORF have gone off-the-rails in disgust. Perhaps Austria are making a comeback, but they wanted to keep things quiet for the time being, but then Mr Erichsen goes and lets the cat out the bag, and is now being forced to say its a lie by ORF. I would love to see Austria back, along with Luxembourg, and the debut of Liechtenstein. But until we know the full outcome on this, we cannot publish it as a fact on any article relating to the contest, whether it be ESC2010, or "x-country" in the Eurovision. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no grounds to believe that this statement was not made by Erichsen. We do have proof in recording, though even without it mention of it by two reliable sites (ESCKaz and Belarus state news agency) is enough to consider this statement as really made. Statement clearly has no wording of hope in it and is rather strong indication by Mr.Erichsen of current information. As it was made by him on behalf of EBU on official press-conference, whether it was correct on EBU side or made prematurely, it has to be included somewhere, even if EBU and other sources later deny it. I'm adding it, as it is important not only in terms of Austria, but newcoming countries in general. AlexeyU (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that there is history of Mr.Erichsen doing premature statements, as in Moscow in May, where he stated that Eurovision Dance Contest 2009 will certainly proceed as minimum of participants has been reached, which later turned to be not the real case. However, as he holds a high position of Eurovision TV director, his statements made at official press-conferences, whatever they are should be included. AlexeyU (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds more fair to do - in all honest, I'm having doubts about adding this information. However, in this circumstance, I will turn a blind eye to it. But I cannot guarantee that another member of the WikiEurovision Project will allow it to remain there - they will more than likely remove it, based upon it being speculation or conflict of information. Pr3st0n (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can not see it being reverted on speculation grounds and in case of conflict of information it should be expanded with new information and updates to the situation, but still not reverted. We have had there statement of EBU saying they are working to make Italy, Monaco and other countries back and this statement of Erichsen saying that "ONLY Italy is missing" is certainly worth to be mentioned as progress in course, even if is denied after. Unless EBU issues statement not saying the quotation has been misinterpreted, which we can now hear it was not, being cited correctly, but the appology statement saying that Mr.Erichsen was incorrect or had no right to make this kind of statement. AlexeyU (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

where the contest will be held in 2010

i just want to clear up all confusion on the subject of where it will be held. the contest will be held in telenor arena in the neighbor to oslo. (bærum) which is located in the neighbor county of oslo which is named akershus. any people that say that the contest will be held in oslo is lying. the contest will be held in bærum. User:84.208.66.3 21:45, 21 September 2009

Seeing as the person above couldn't be arsed to sign his his/her post, I thought I'd find the culprits I'd I.D., along with date and time of posting and added it next to his/her little text. - In response to it though, despite the fact the arena itself is outside of Oslo, the EBU and NRK have both agreed for the sake of the contest, that the name of host city to be used is Oslo, and not bærum. P.S. here's my posting signature >>> lol (Pr3st0n (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)) saying oslo is a lie. even if people say it 100 times it will still be a lie. telenor arena lies in bærum which is in a different county.

Belarus

Is this a possible withral from Belarus? [10] [11] what i understand is that BRTC will broadcast/be responsabli for Belarus 2010 and in 2011 will be ONT responsabli for the contest. Should we continue to have Belarus in the confirmed countries's list? João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Participation of Belarus is confirmed and I have updated Belarus_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2010 with the latest information. Basically, ONT is in charge of preselection and preparation, and will broadcast contest if accepted into EBU. If not accepted, BTRC will only broadcast the contest, but ONT still will be responsible for other things. AlexeyU (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

San Marino is returning ?

Is San Marino returning ? http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6484 --Ahmetyal 10:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"SMRTV will decide whether enter or not in Oslo on October 9th" -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 10:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We have paragraph on San Marino, that it is considering returning. This article adds nothing to it.AlexeyU (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's almost midnigth in CET and nothing? does anyone know anything about San Marino? :S cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasters have time by November 15th to confirm their participation. Do we rely on Oikotimes for 9th of October rumour? AlexeyU (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I thougth it was true :S i thougth that they would like to make something more official to confirm the return (i hope is a retun, but that is not call for here), so we have to wait... :( this year the contriues are more late than previous years, are not? João P. M. Lima (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-organised the debuting, returning, and withdrawal sections

I have re-organised the debuting, returning, and withdrawal sections. This was made into one section but since this was about three different topics I have split this into three. I have also re-ordered the content more logically and put everything into reasonably sized paragraphs. I have reverted attempts to listify these sections for several reasons. Prose has benefits over lists, as well as being considered more encyclopedic, it forces writers to explain things (e.g. why a country is withdrawing). It discourages just the addition of entries to a list without any context or explanation (e.g. claiming a country is debuting without saying why), which is much less helpful for readers. This is okay for confirmed participants, where there is often not much more to say than that a country is confirmed so a list is fine, but with debuting/returning/withdrawing the situation is often more complicated. There are also some particular reasons why lists are not helpful in this case. Firstly, the use of flags which come with lists are excessive with the links provided with them already in the text body, so if flags are to be used the existing X in the Eurovision Song Contest links should be removed. With the current set-up listing countries in this way also implies, particularly at first glance, that the country's are of equal status e.g. all those mentioned in the withdrawal section are withdrawing, which is not the case. By using prose countries of similar situations can be grouped together and it encourages full reading of what is written there, rather than just the country names, to better avoid misleading readers. I know these issues seem a little trivial, but I think they add-up enough to justify bringing up here. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

May be we should get rid of Azerbaijan part? It seems that besides small rules change, it has not affected 2010 contest, and certainly Azerbaijan is neither withdrawing or is disqualified. AlexeyU (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it is already mentioned in Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest and it has hardly impacted on Eurovision 2010 so I would not object to removing it. Disqualification does not really fit with the term withdrawing, which implies a broadcaster decision, anyway. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should reflect that rule change somewhere in the article? Or it is too minor to be included? AlexeyU (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a brief mention somewhere would be appropriate. Not sure where it would go though. Camaron · Christopher · talk 07:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just removed the flags and bullet points that were reinserted per above. I concur that it makes no sense to have the linked flags and the linked articles, and that whilst a list for participants is appropriate, we should favour prose over bullet lists elsewhere. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also reverted back a change to have lots of little sections. My rationale for this is that it doesn't look right having an entire section for a few sentences, one section really should be one or two decent paragraphs when prose is used. The original flow of the prose, like with having it as a list, had also been lost. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can we get some kind of protection on this page? IPs and newbies are indiscriminately adding, removing and changin without refs. This is only going to get worse as we get nearer to May next year. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put in the request for semi-protection. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia and Latvia

Please add Slovenia and Latvia as confirming countries: Tv of Slovenia has published rules for its preselection (http://www.rtvslo.si/files/razpisi_natecaji/2009/ema_2010_-_razpis.pdf) and director of Tv of Latvia has confirmed participation (sources from www.esckaz.com, these seem reliable). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.121.220 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia it's ok, but Latvia is better wait for a "Yes, we'll take part in Eurovision Song Contest, in Oslo, in 2010". The director just syas that is no reason to leave the contest or it's anything that can make the country fail, but he didn't confirmed the participation oficially João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia language

The rules for the EMA says that the song as to be un slovenian, ok. But the winning song can be translated to english, as some other coutries do, or will be realy in slovenian? João P. M. Lima (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirm countries

Last year, for the same time, there was 35 countries confirmed [12] (this is the last edition in the 2009 article on October 20, 2008). This year there are only 27, what's wrong? (don't take this as a blog question) cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Financial crisis has obliged some broadcasters to review budgets and plans for ESC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.35.52 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, that broadcasters have to confirm participation by sending e-mail to EBU and not by making public announcement about that. Delay of public announcement, may mean for example, that they are more deeply investigating different preselection methods to get better result at the competition. AlexeyU (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that... A want to see Sapain, France, Irland (apart of the possible withraw), and some more taking part, thanks for the answers João P. M. Lima (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Can someone please change Bulgaria's entrant name from "Miroslav Kostadinov" to "Miro" please? Miro is his stage name, under which he releases songs and albums. His full name is hardly known even in Bulgaria. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.10.23 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed?

Romania isn't on the map yet and the source just says that one group will be in the Romanian contest. Is that a confirmation? And which source says that Albania will decide their song in December 2009? /Hollac16 (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

not comenting the rest, but the fact of a country be not represented in the map doesn't have to see with his confirmation or not, generally the map it's updated later ;) João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Albania: [13] every year the contest is in December, if it was during almost 50 years it's 99% that will be in December João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Romania: the news say Romania : The Blaxy Girls play their card again, doesn't say that they are going to play they card again or something like that, they afirm that are in the contest (I just not understood if the song in the news page it's the onde that they are biding in Romania final João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If Romania is confirmed then put it on the map! /Hollac16 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would paint the map, if my computer support SVG files, i install the program to work with svg, but it doesn't work -.-, that's why i never update any map in Wiki (only the ones there are SVG) João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Romania is right now taken away from confirmed list. So I don't think you need to paint Romania yet. /Hollac16 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia

Does anyone know anything about Russia? I think that we can put it as a confirm country. In 55 years of esc history, the host country of an event, never withraw in the event after; Putin wants a "Eurovision" for Asia, that shows that they are interested in taking part (the Asia version will be not this year so); there were rumors about Dima Bilan coming back in 2010, anda about other artist; Putin wants the Eurovision back to Russia. I think that this is suficcient to confirm a country participation (and Russia doesn't have financial problems that could make them withraw) João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

France

Is this a confirmation? they say that an old artist will represent the country, they only speculate in who artist will be lol i think that we finally can say that France will take part João P. M. Lima (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There are only speculation name, not a confirmation. But I know that France will compete in next ESC, otherwise EBU must find a new big supporting country to the contest. /Hollac16 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oikotimes is not a "reliable" source as established by our consensus on ESC sources a few months ago. See the project talk archive for more information regarding the matter. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

What I know, Turkey has not yet determined artist. Why, then, the artist added? And why is it only a Turkish source? Since no other ESC-website has added this information yet, I take the liberty to remove the artist. /Hollac16 (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvement of the lead and general clean-up

I have improved the lead to better comply with WP:LEAD. The lead should introduce the article and summarise important points within the article body. The lead is not a spare section to place content which does not appear to fit elsewhere, and as it should summarise the lead should not focus on a particular topic of the article. So having 50% of the lead dedicated to debuting/returns/withdrawals and then not mentioning it anywhere else in the article body is not correct. I moved the details back to the appropriate section, and left a summary of important points in the lead. I have also removed the comment Right now, there aren't cleared yet if 'Big Four' and the host country will be directly qualified for the finals as they possibly new rules limits for the contest haven't been presented yet. I have not seen a source that has come close to saying that there will be changes to final qualification, with the source used clearly being focused on semi-final voting changes, so this is unsourced speculation, and unless sources specifically suggest this, it is close to original research. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not understand why one or more users here changed my edits in the headlines "debuting, returning & withdrawing countries". It must be "Possible" in front of them, otherwise it looks like to those countries which are under the headings will debut / return / withdrawal from the race. I therefore change back to what was before now.

Secondly, then in the text above to Right now, there aren't cleared yet if 'Big Four' and the host country will be directly qualified for the finals as they possibly new rules limits for the contest haven't been presented yet. The reason why I wrote this was that earlier in the year when I divided the countries in the categories "direct qualified" and "semi-finalists" so it was removed with the reason that the rules for 2010 have not arrived yet and there may be a change in the "The Big 4 'will no longer be automatically qualified. If it is not necessarily to be like this, so we might as well now divide these two tables in the "direct-qualified" and "semi-finalists" right now. Or am I wrong? /Hollac16 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the current headings are fine personally, while I accept they are slightly ambiguous as they imply they are only about confirmed debuts/returns/withdrawals, possible debuts/returns/withdrawals can reasonably come under these headings as well. Just putting possible in front them would not be appropriate as they include confirmed returns/withdrawals as well possible, and just having confirmed returns/withdrawals in the lead to try and solve this violates the WP:LEAD guideline per above. I would also oppose splitting participants into lots of little sections (as briefly attempted) as having a section for a few sentences does not look right and is excessive for the amount of information actually there. Originally participants was just one large section with no sub-sections, if the current layout must go I would support going back to that layout.

I think we should stick to what we know, speculating what might/might not be in the rules is not a good route go down. One table is fine for now based on what we know, who will and will not participate, once the rules come out multiple tables can be created based on new information. It is not even the end of 2009 yet and I do not think we should jump too far ahead. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see sweeping changes have been re-instated without talk page consensus, plus my concerns over policy and guideline compliance have not been addressed. I am not going to revert again for the moment as I do not want get into an edit war, but unless concerns over polices and guidelines are properly dealt with, it will be reverted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact I have now reverted the edit as 30 minutes+ were given and no further edits were made nor concerns here were addressed and with broken references that revision couldn't have just been left. Hollac16, thank you for being bold but please try and get talk page consensus before implementing large scale changes when people are objecting to them on the talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) We got into an edit conflict whilst I was also reverting the changes. My reasons were:

1. No reliable sources were provided for the new claim;
2. No discussion was held or attempt made to change concensus on a long-standing agreement of how to present the confirmed participants;
3. The references section had numerous errors.

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a mess of the reverting, but I'm glad we agree here. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Selection Dates

Are that the real selection dates? On the References are no Dates of the national finals. I removed the most of them. If that were the real dates ,I'm sorry. Redpower94 13:35, 27 October 2009(UTC)

I like having the dates, but I feel like it might be best for each to have a source. I remember last year, besides not having them, we felt that things didn't need sources in the table since they are a summary of the articles, so I don't know how to proceed. Sourcing would naturally be the most conservative. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well some countries have decided the final dates when they are choose their songs for 2010. I belive that we can have the final dates only for these countries. But otherwise, let it be like it is just now. /Hollac16 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

This new could be a confirmation? they say that "...are on the shortlist to represent Irland...", so there are a list, or is this just a sptulating article? :S João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I've told you many times before that we cannot use Oikotimes as a source. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

but there are news that have to be true, no? i only know oiktimes, esctoday, esctime, esckaz and eurovision TV that make news about eurovision, and in a regular way, if we were really rigurous, we would only use eurovision.tv as a source or other sites oficialy clamed be EBU. But it's ok, i'll never more make questions with articles from this site João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ESCToday has confirmed that Ireland will participate in 2010. /Hollac16 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland has picked Irish-American singer-songwriter Ben Rothenberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.103.5 (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name in references

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change ^ Repo, Juha (2009-05-15). "Сменят регламента за избор на песен в “Евровизия”" (in Bulgarian). Dir.bg. http://life.dir.bg/2009/05/15/news4448585.html. Retrieved 2009-05-15. to ^ (2009-05-15). "Сменят регламента за избор на песен в “Евровизия”" (in Bulgarian). Dir.bg. http://life.dir.bg/2009/05/15/news4448585.html. Retrieved 2009-05-15. Please change Repo, Juha (2009-05-18). "Israel: Mixed emotions and reactions to final result". ESCToday. http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14101. Retrieved 2009-05-18. to Barak, Itamar (2009-05-18). "Israel: Mixed emotions and reactions to final result". ESCToday. http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14101. Retrieved 2009-05-18.

My name Juha Repo is used twice in the article references, numbers 24 and 36. Whereas I am en editor for Esctoday.com, those links referred to are not written by me Juhauk (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 11:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Still on Italy

there is: "now we are only missing Italy" it could be better to remove this news until we get news DIRECTLY FROM RAI!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.184.146 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? Its a quote from an EBU press conference and is well sourced, I see nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball only applies to unsourced speculation. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

However RAI has still to say a word about ESC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.176.111 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well when/if they do it can be mentioned, but the RAI are not the only acceptable source for information about Italy and the ESC. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

France again

I don't know, but is this [[14]] a confirmation for France? I put that in the article but it was reverted so I wonder why! /Hollac16 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The francophone website www.eurovision-info.net publishes the news: "France will reveal its candidate for Oslo on March 5th 2010". It says inside that France 3 has created a jury for choosing the best proposal received internally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.119.26 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give direct link to this news on this site? Can't find it there. AlexeyU (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The news was posted in the section of "Flash" but now it seems it has been removed, so it couldn't be reliable. This proves that this site is not a reliable source. The news about Luxembourg don't taking part come also from this site, so I think it could be questionable while ESCtoday hasn't published it and manager of NRK stated recently the interest of RTL in Oslo 2010, but we'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.30.162 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this web site [[15]] confirmes participation for France. /Hollac16 (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

i think that we can not use this site as an oficial source, even the oiktimes, published this news as "Based on rumors...", let's wait until November 15, the final day for the submissions to EBU, i know that they can not say if they enter or pass netx edition, but is this sunday, so we can wait until there João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

but the site is a good one, and the are convicted on what they say, so maybe is true, and France is taking part next year, choosing internaly João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that France and Spain would jump of 2010. It would in such cases mean that 1) The EBU would lose two good sponsors for the contest, 2) All participating countries would be might have to pay more to be in the contest and 3) France and Spain would probably lose their automatic direct qualification places in the final. /Hollac16 (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but we have to have an article that really confirms Spain's and France's participations, my personal opinion is that the site is a realibe reference, but i don't know if others will acept it João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there are many countries that ESCToday has confirmed that eurovision.tv hasn't confirmed. It took very long time for eurovison.tv to confirm that Bosnia will decide their song on 7 March, 2010. /Hollac16 (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

in that point, you have interily reason. We only have sure that a country is taking part, only when the participating list is revealed by EBU, until there we only have the thinkings (this to be rigorous). So, i think that with this site, France can be accepted has a participating country. They are a "old" ESC country, and last year had a grate sucess, France will be there for sure, we only need a good reference, and i think that site is a good one João P. M. Lima (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent as I am not sure who is replying to whom on what point). Eurovision-bonsoirparis.com does not strike me as a reliable source. I agree that Eurovision.tv takes a while to publish news, hence us using ESCToday quite a bit. I too doubt that France will withdraw, but my personal opinions about what a country may do are quite irrelevant. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

it seems like the site was taken as a realible reference João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Which I have just removed:

• Uses conditional throughout
• Talks about "rumeurs" and "bruits de couloir" (rumours)
• Explicitly says "aucune information officielle n'est venue" (no official information has been given)
• Will not name participant "Cependant, compte tenu du caractère encore fragile de l’information, nous nous garderons bien de citer son nom" (however, given the unstable nature of the information, we reserve the right not to name [the candidate])

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am with Alexandr on this one, sources based on rumours are unlikely to pass WP:RS, and "country x is likely/unlikely to participate" should not come into it per WP:NOR, it won't hurt to wait for a better source. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Armenia on Map???

Could it be that Armenia is missing on the Map??? Redpower94 14:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not now, after looking at the source and reading, "At this moment we have not yet officially decided, whether we will take part in Eurovision in Oslo as earlier planned, or we will withdraw from the event. We continue active discussions with EBU on this matter". -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Latvia

I think that we can add Latvia to the confirmed list. [16] The country add never shown a possible withraw, the director said that they will have founds to secure Latvian participation, and the country has been in the confirmed list of esckaz for many time. I think that is consistent to add it. João P. M. Lima (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And Russia? They were last year hosts, never, in ESC history a previous host as withraw, can't this be a reference? they will to Oslo for sure, no? João P. M. Lima (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What has, or has not happened in the past is not a WP:RS, but WP:CRYSTAL. Where's the source? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no source, I only think that is strange that this country as never said nothing about 2010 participation, after done the biggest ESC ever. The only news, is abou two or three possible artist that would enter in the national selection, and the possibility about Dima represent Russia again (but he has already said that would only - and would love to do it - write the russian entry) João P. M. Lima (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Andorra

According to this site Andorra will participate in next ESC, they have a little money apart and will aply for extern money. They say too that the country can still withraw, but this is for all that have confirmed, they can do it until December, 15 withou having to pay a fine. So we can put Andorra on the map :D João P. M. Lima (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well its seems to be a preliminary confirmation of participation, leaving it open to debate on if this enough to have them on the confirmed participants list. They are currently on it, and I don't mind either way, though the details about their budget e.t.c. should remain in any case to make it clear to readers what is happening. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this Andorra has been removed from the confirmed participants list. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

when israel win twice they didnt participate the year after. therefore it have happened that the previus host have left afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Andorra is on the map now. I wonder why, beacuse they have not yet get a real confirm for participate 2010. /Hollac16 (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

where the contest finals as well as semi finals will be held

as a norwegian i can clear up any confusions by saying that it will be held in bærum which lies in the country of akershus. untill norwegian politicians decide otherwise it will remain that way. (the borders were expanded before so they could be expanded again.) perhaps bærum should become a part of oslo, but the fact is that it isnt, that is something everybody have to accept. telenor arena lies in bærum end of story.(eurovision song contest will be held there.) i have been doing my best to get nrk to stop lying but they are difficult to convince. to prove that i am norwegian here is a little norwegian. eurovision song contest blir holdt i bærum.(what i wrote in norwegian i have also written in english. or most of it anyway.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea why NRK should lie about where the song contest will be held 2010. I belive that Baerum are a part of Oslo, otherwise they shouldn't say it is in Olso. Or it is so that Oslo are the biggest city near Baerum. /Hollac16 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

why nrk is lying i am unable to tell. what i can tell is that bærum isnt a part of oslo.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk)

Baerum vs Oslo for Telenor Arena

I removed Oslo from the infobox describing the location of the arena. According to the source [17] it is located in "greater metropolitan Oslo" and "south of Oslo". Now besides that, the arena's article and pure geography show that Baerum is a suburb and not actually part of the city of Oslo. The situation is similar to that of the Olympics where there is a main city where they are hosted, though the events may not even take place in the actual confines of the city. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

EBU put Oslo first because Oslo is the biggest city around that area. But if Baerum is a city, then we can have Baerum first. But I think that we need to have Oslo with Baerum. /Hollac16 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That field is for the location of the venue which certainly is not in Oslo. Putting Baerum, Oslo, Norway implies that Baerum is an area or neighborhood of Oslo. I see no problem with omitting Oslo. We get that Oslo is the largest nearby city, but that does not place the actual venue in Oslo. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

bærum is a city named sandvika. sandvika contains the townhall of bærum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk • contribs) if bærum as well as oslo shall be on the list it should bærum and oslo. since bærum isnt a part of oslo at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Debuting countires

The debuting countries section was removed on the basis that Liechtenstein will not participate in 2010. Assuming this is correct content should not just be removed just because something is based in the past or did not happen. This is not a current events page, an encyclopaedia does include historical information. The information may need to be re-organised and the section name is no longer quite right, but most of the info is specific to this year so even if more details are put in another article such as Liechtenstein in the Eurovision Song Contest, it should really be mentioned somewhere on this page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I made an bad decion on that particular paragraph of the article, but I think that the parts are under "participation" must be changed now. On Swedish wikipedia, I have everything in its own section, with sections instead of just weird headlines. The reason why I do not like the headings "debuting / returing / withdrawing" is because those sections containing both countries will debut / retrurn / with draw, but they also contain facts about the countries that will perhaps debut / return / with draw. Therefore, I propose a merger of these instead of having claims and truths mingled. (Sorry for my bad English) /Hollac16 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally participants was just one long section without any sub-headings, I would accept going back to that and condensing the information once the final list of participants is available. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Spain confirmed

Spain has confirmed: sources eurovision-spain.com, vertele.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.117.4 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But the best source ever: esctoday (the only source that English Wikipedia is taking for a good source) have confirmed that Spain has confirmed their participation for 2010. /Hollac16 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Still on Italy 2

the last answer was Well when/if they do it can be mentioned, but the RAI are not the only acceptable source for information about Italy and the ESC OK, but it's a broadcaster that decides about ESC. And RAI has still to express an opinion. Or, it could be better NOT to mention Italy until the deadline... After, we can say "Italy won't be at ESC", NOT before. And, for the next editions, I suggest NOT to mention Italy until the deadline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.178.14 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the general rule is that if a reliable source states something relevant to the 2010 contest then it can be stated in the article, the EBU said they would be trying to get Italy back in the contest, it is reliable and that is hence stated in the article. Material should be included and excluded from the article based on policies/guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS, none have been cited so far here to justify removal of the content. Obviously, common sense does come into and if the source is clearly wrong then it should not be included, but there is no evidence that is the case here, note that the article mentions Italy but clearly does not say it will be definitely returning, and there is a good chance it won't, but that is besides the point. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but tell me when RAI expressed opinion about ESC in last 12 months... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.176.14 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing as far as I know, but not all events between broadcasters and the EBU are made public, and there is no requirement for an RAI statement for the current information in the article per above. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I give up... but after 13 years of absence, information about Italy should be stopped until RAI will say a single word about ESC. I can't rely on illusions every year—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.56.182.109 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the EBU may well be under "illusions", but that is a personal opinion, and it is the function of Wikipedia to report verifiable information to build an encyclopedia, not to pass judgements over what is likely/not likely to happen. Hence, it is not appropriate to exclude information from certain sources based on the viewpoints of editors without the foundation of policies or guidelines. Camaron · Christopher · talk 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

if it was only 1-2 years of absence ok. But it's 13 years, a very long period, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.5.133 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Could whoever edits the maps please put Italy on "participated in past etc."? Luxembourg is there so why not put Italy and Morocco there too? Zu Anto 08:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom?

There is a particular source that indicates that Duncan James will represent the UK at ESC '10 (esctoday, digitalspy.com) and that Gary Barlow will be the songwriter. Can someone as I am a bit rusty at wiki at the moment A. Please make the page United Kingdom at the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 and B. Update the table to show this. The song will be in English, as it always has been. Thanks.. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 16:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links I think you're talking about: [18] [19]. As they're just "in talks", I'd suggest not creating a page just yet until something is actually confirmed. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Latvia

Latvia is marked on the map, but not in the confirmed table. I don't find any sources that says that Latvia are confirmed. If that is true, then its mark should be removed from the map. /Hollac16 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia, Armenia and Latvia

ESCkaz reports confirmation for these countries in its revamped Oslo page. OK, ESCkaz is not considered a reliable source in general, but considering only ex-USSR countries, I firmly think they have acceptable sources, because they have many contacts in the ex-USSR public broadcasters. They also say Lithuania is likely to participate, but that's not official yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.37.218 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For me those three are more than confirmed... And i think that ESCkaz is a good source João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Romanian National Final

Will be on 6TH of MARCH ;). Please modify! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.27.224 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All dates be sourced to be included in the article, thanks. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the sources : http://www2.tvr.ro/eurovision/ http://esckaz.com/2010/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.27.224 (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two tables

I have repeatedly tried to break up the table with the countries competing in two tables (one with 'The Big 4' and one with semi finalists). Okay, if EBU would change the system with the semi-finals, still 'The Big 4' and the host country will be directly qualified for the grand Saturday final, for the reason that they pay much for that to be very directly qualified. I think we should have two tables instead of just one. We do not need to name them "finalists" and "semi-finalists" but we can name them "Big 4 & host" and "other/remaing countries". What do you think of that? /Hollac16 (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The contest is still about five months away, there is not any urgency to create multiple tables. I think it would be easier to wait until the EBU release the participants list so the number of participants is fixed and we don't have to work around loads of references to confirm participation for each individial country, as these will be superseded by the EBU's list. According to their website (centre of home page near the bottom) the list will be released in a "few weeks". Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you here at the English Wikipedia don't wanna have two tables now!? This is exactly the same thing that happens every year! Why don't have two tables? EBU have confirmed that 'Big4' & Norway will be directly qualified for the grand finale on 29th May and the rest will be semi-finalists (34 countries) in two semi-finals (17 each). Do you need the source for this? Here it is: "The so-called 'Big Four' (France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom) are automatically qualified for the Final on the 29th of May, as their respective broadcasters are crucial contributors to the Eurovision Song Contest. As host country, Norway (NRK) is also secure of a spot in the Final, to take place on Saturday 29 May. The other 34 countries will appear in one of the two Semi-Finals, scheduled to take place on Tuesday 25 and Thursday 27 May (17 countries in each Semi-Final)..." I propose that we divide the table into two parts. One of the Big 4 "and one with semi-finalists. I have been very difficult to understand why we should not divide them. /Hollac16 (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are quoting the EBU participants list which was released on 31 December 2009; I wrote the above on 28 December 2009. I am sorry you are having difficulty understanding though I do not think I could have been much clearer. I did not want multiple tables immediately, to repeat what I said above, because the EBU participants list had not yet been released. Now it has been released we can have multiple tables. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I can fix it. /Hollac16 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the system where the big 4 go to the final without having to go through the semi final shouldnt have exited. the big 4 system was based on the older qualification system. after the semi final was introduced the big 4 rule should have ended. however it was kept too long. they may have however stopped using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sha-la-lie

Official name of Dutch entry is Ik ben verliefd (Sha-la-lie), NOT Ik ben verliefd, shalalie!!! 91.156.163.248 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources state different things, Eurovision.tv states the song as "Ik ben verliefd, Shalalie" so this is how it will remain for the time being. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)