Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Results tables

I propose that the tables in the "Results" section should, by default, be sorted by place (highest placed first) not draw number. Almost everyone looking at the results is surely primarily interested in the placing order, not the draw order? I know it's only one more click, but the way it is seems kind of perverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.26.25 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In the ESC, the draw order is an integral part of the event, as it very strongly contributes to the audiovisual choreography over the course of each evening and therefore to the entire atmosphere of the competition nights. --78.34.253.69 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree in having the tables in the results section being sorted having the highest placement. But, the point is, on some versions of the results tables in different languages, the 2nd place and 3rd place artists are highlighted in different colors. In the English-language table, highlighting the 2nd and 3rd place competitors in the final is not possible. They need to sort them by draw order because it contributes to the audiovisual choreography and singing over the course of the three evenings. J4lambert (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bizarre. I cannot even begin to understand why anyone would not want the results sorted by placement by default. 86.185.78.186 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

What does the winner get?

Does anybody know what the winner gets? Cash, prizes, recording contracts? I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an ambiguous question. Who gets what from whom? If you mean "what does the winning artist get from the contest organizers", then the answer is that since the ESC is primarily a competition between countries, and since the countries are free to award their artists in whatever manner they see fit, it's not necessary for the contest organizers to give any prize to the winning artist (although usually the artist has received some kind of trophy as a token of victory). Derlay (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

From main page: "At the end of the programme, the winner is declared as the song with the most points. The winner receives, simply, the prestige of having won—although it is usual for a trophy to be awarded to the winning songwriters, and the winning country is invited to host the event the following year".

Judging from photos of this years' winner Lena at her press conference, the trophy seems to take the form of a glass replica of an old fashioned microphone? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a rule that, following the contest, the winning entry had to be released as a single in all participating nations. This would naturally give the band more exposure. After all, would Abba have made it outside Sweden had they not won in 1974? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 157.193.72.129, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is an error in the table containing voting results for the final: the 3 points given by Slovakia to Norway are currently in the column for Finland. 157.193.72.129 (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Spokeperson from Israel

That was Ofer Nahshon. Please add this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviadd1 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

possible scandal

jimmy jump was sponsored by a norwegian person.

budget problems faced by nrk

they suffered a loss of at least 6 million norwegian crowns. however if they have to pay the police the loss will be 16 million crowns.

Structure of Article - Order of information presented -

I think the overall structure of the article is rather crowded and contains information, which may not be of major interest. The article should be structured in the way, that important information is first, additional infos are at the end. The article is about contest, but the final result of the contest are pretty much at the end. Before that all kinds of details about semi-finals, voting are mentioned. It is just way too much info in the wrong order. 84.163.151.38 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT governs the layout of articles, including the order that some things are in. There is a rough layout established for all Eurovision Song Contest articles, and any move around would need to be done on a wider scale. Articles are usually in rough chronological order in a way which makes the article flow as one readable work from start to finish. Putting sections in order of importance is not a good idea for several reasons. Firstly, in many cases readers need to read one section first to establish context for another, to give some examples, reading who is participating is good before reading the semi-final results, as is reading the semi-final results before the final results as who was in the final depended on the semi-finals. Secondly, reading the article from start to finish in order of importance would not make a good read with the likely constant jumping from one topic to another. Finally, what is important is very subjective, so agreement is unlikely to be reached on what order the sections should be in. In any case the lead, along with the infobox, should introduce the article and summarise each section, and give readers an overview of the article without having to read very much. There is also a table of contents allowing readers to jump straight to a section that interests them. CT Cooper · talk 08:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

greece had english.

the song was mostly in greek with a few words of english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.74.217 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We only list the language the song was "mostly in". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Error in Scoresheet

According to Eurovision.tv Malta gave 1 point to Russia in the first semi final and not slovakia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.17.38 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)