Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Palestine

who got rid of the Palestinian bit?Zu Anto 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine has not confirmed its participation. An encyclopedia is not the place to speculate which countries may or may not participate in the contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though Palestine have not confirmed participation for 2010; they have stated prior to the 2009 contest that they are in the middle of a EUROVISION project; and that as soon as their membership becomes active, that they WILL participate. Palestine's EBU membership has been approved (which is also shown on the EBU's website). Their membership becomes active after the 2009 contest. Therefore Palestine's participation at the 2010 contest is highly likely. This information can also be backed-up with details on the WIKIPEDIA thread about the EBU [1] and also the thread on Palestine In The Eurovision [2]. SO I feel that the information about Palestine being a possible debut should be returned to the 2010 thread. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Per wikipedia rules, unless it is 100% that Palestine will participate, then it will not be added. Someone made the Palestine page, which will soon be nominated for deletion along with all of the other countries which have never participated ever. You can't have a page that says that they want to, but can't or have not yet. That is not how wikipedia works. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from Stephen regards to this matter. However, Palestine HAVE said that they will participate in the Eurovision that follows their active membership approval. That membership has since been approved, and their membership changes from associate to ACTIVE once the 2009 contest has been completed. So therefore, 2010 will see the debut of Palestine, based on all that information, which HAS come from reliable sources on the internet, including the Palestinian broadcasters (PRTV), and the EBU themselves. Further more; delegates from Qatar and Palestine are at the contest in Moscow 2009, and have been included in meetings with the EBU executives. This further adds to the likelihood of them participating in 2010. You state the thread on "Palestine in the Eurovision" is being deleted. Yet, the thread on Qatar can still remain, and that information on Qatar is strongly backed-up with liable sources, just like the Palestinian one. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I didn't start the deletion process yet because I was at work, but I will now I suppose. Year after year we have to get rid of these "country can participate, but doesnt", "country wants to participate, but can't" and "country is planning on participating once all these random hurdles are crossed". It's just not encyclopedic to speculate on who may or may not participate. Unless Palestine or any of the other country says it is participating (not wants to, or is thinking about it) then they cannot be included on the page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the article, reference 3, (At a press conference on 13 May 2009, the EBU confirmed that countries like Kazakhstan, Palestine and Qatar are not eligible to join in the future along with any country geographically located outside of the European Broadcasting Area. It was also said that there are no new potential active countries as all that are eligible are already in, but there may be new broadcasters in European countries that already have at least one member.), may need to be reviewed, as the source is from ESCKaz. My reason being for this is following something which you brought to my attention User:Grk1011 back in October 2008 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Reliability of ESCKaz. (Pr3st0n (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

That discussion ended with consensus that ESCKaz is reliable, however, its format for publishing makes it hard to reference in articles. We decided to use if we need to, but replace with another source when it becomes available. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If that be the case, then why wasn't I informed about this consensus? Afterall I am an active member of the WikiEurovision Project. Would be nice to keep it's members, whether they be active or inactive, informed of all changes - AT ALL TIMES. (Pr3st0n (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

There were notices sent out to all members listed as active of the project regarding the discussion while it was going on. In fact it is still on your talk page. Mass posting of messages on talk pages can be found annoying by many editors, I was not willing to send out more than one notice regarding it. It is assumed that editors are interested in what the outcome of a debate will be, they will watchlist the page. If the outcome is disputed, then it can always be reviewed at a later debate. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The initial article was sent to me indeed - but the conclusion was not. I'll admit I wasn't aware of this "Watchlist" though, which would have helped out. I also noticed that I was removed from Active to Inactive; despite the fact that I was constantly providing reliable information for the 2009 edition. Any explanation as to why this happened? I appreciate feedback on this query. (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I moved you from active to inactive last month when I did my routine checking of member edits. When a user has not made a significant amount of edits to a Eurovision article in the past two months I remove them from the active list. This is so that other members can go to the list and contact an active member if they need one. Contacting people who make 5 or so edits a month (not saying you) would be a waste of time because they obviously do not edit enough to respond quickly and help. There is a note at the top that says if you find yourself on the inactive list to simply move yourself back to active if you think you are so. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the exact reason was because you were last regularly editing in September 2008 and as of the beginning of May, had only made two edits in 2009, both of which occurred in January on the same day. I felt that after not making a single edit for 4 months, you might be classified as inactive. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was regularly editing in September 2008; and continue to do so, even to this present day. Between October 2008 - January 2009; I was having difficulty gaining log-in access to my Wiki account, which resulted me into signing any alterations using my IP address. The log-in access got resolved on January 24th, 2009, and since then I've been re0using my Wiki user name. I have now placed myself back in the "active" section. Thanks for answering my questions on this Stephen. P.S. Do you still use your MSN account? Mine has since changed, you can access the new data via my User page. (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I can't relate random ip addresses to you so that is why it would seem as if you were inactive. I blocked you on msn after getting daily spam messages lol. I assume that's why you have a new one. I'm the same depending on which one you had in the first place. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Italy

Be serious, Italy won't come back! I'm not a magician, but an Italian that knows very well how Italy treats ESC!--87.6.182.170 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is being serious. The article just says that the EBU will try. It doesn't say anywhere how likely or unlikely the return is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: I am Italian, and I promise that if Italy won't com back (sure 100%), i will write "Italy retired"--87.6.179.238 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say that Italy will return, just that the EBU will try to make it. Nothing wrong with that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011. You don't know how your country will act and you cannot speak on behalf of it. If there is a source(from the broadcaster) specifically confirming participation or non participation, only then can it be added. At the moment, there's nothing wrong with quoting the EBU's intentions. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed participants

Why only confirmed participants??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.174.155 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because others aren't definite. This isn't a forum to speculate on who may or may not participate. It is an encyclopedia that shows facts. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Grk1011 i admire your enthusiasm for the Eurovision subject. But sometimes your own personal could become to strong, and you forget that there is hundreds or thousands of other people that also wants to voice their opinions about a certain layout of an article etc etc etc.. But maybe doesnt get the time because you haste into a decision to delete material or similar. Just wanted you to know. cheers.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the only person who responded here, but there is much support of the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, which ultimately led to this page's protection. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt questioning that decision. I was only questioning your very "over the top" strong opinions an views in some areas concerning Eurovision. cheers.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Grk1011 is right. This is an encyclopaedia, a place of fact - not opinion, speculation, guessing or hope. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also supporting Grk1011. WP:CRYSTAL includes the sentence: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." At this stage preparation hasn't yet begun - the venue has at best only just been announced - and speculation is not well documented. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added the UK as the BBC stated via Twitter that they "don't think there's any question whatosever about the UK participating in 2010 - course we are!" Martin Leng (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yey! I was the one who asked them that. I'm glad I could help. Chrisethebest (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

German broadcaster ARD is confirming too. Check its website or the news in eurovision-spain.com about its projects. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.127.241 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Message

Might as well remove the deletion message seeing as this is an up and coming event and will no doubt be resusrrected soon anyway. I will do this now. EDIT: lol, can't do this, but still I stand by my point - that deletion message is USELESS. ²wenty³  • MESSAGE ME • MY CONTRIBUTIONS • BIGGEST NEWS • RECENT CHANGES 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? The message advised people that the article is being considered for deletion and invites them to participate in the deletion discussion. If you delete the message people won't know, and it could be deleted without them having a chance to participcate. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But the discussion is over and the result was keep. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

At the time I posted the above message the AfD was still open; it was speedily closed by a non-admin with an invitation to revert and request admin review, which I have done. The AfD is still open. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bergen ? Oslo ?

Has the location been announced ? Hektor (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they've only just won it! It may not be for some months so please don't try to guess or add a location without a reptuable source. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No. There are several cities that wants to host the contest, and Trond Giske, Ministre of Culture has stated that he expects that an announcement will be made before summer. TrondM (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ESC Today is claiming the Telenor Arena in Oslo is the venue, and considering its newness and its large capacity it seems likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.178.70 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ESC Today are using the headline "Telenor Arena to host Eurovision 2010?", the question mark is a big clue in that it is still a question whether it will. At the end of the article it also states; 'The decision about where to host the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest will be made by the new host broadcaster, NRK in Norway in the near future'. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 11:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A not binding poll at NRK.no is listing three locations; Telenor Arena in Fornebu, Oslo Spektrum in Oslo and Vikingskipet in Hamar. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 12:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found a few sources that say the next contest will be held in Oslo. But I don't know if they are reliable or not. LG 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

http://goscandinavia.about.com/od/historyart/p/eurovision2010.htm

http://www.trksh.com/

I would not trust them, Eurovision has many fan sites, but Norway does not have that many famed cities. I would wait for a source from either NRK.no or Eurovision.tv, Moscow was announced in July so shouldn't be long. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oikotimes.com have a couple of articles which imply that Oslo is infact the new host city for 2010. In one of the articles they state that Oikotimes.com have spoken to executives for Norwegian broadcaster NRK. I'm still uncertain whether to believe these sources. However, they do show strong reliable information in regards to Oslo being the host city for 2010.
Article 1: Goodnight Moscow, Good morning Oslo http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=5810
Article 2: Oslo to host 2010 edition in Telenor Arena http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=5818 (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

There is always speculation. It will be added to the article when it is certain. It's such a small thing to put so much time and effort into. We will add the information when it becomes available. We don't need to predict and assume anything. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grk1011. All of this is pure speculation, simply based on Oslo being the capital of Norway. To be honest, I'm pretty sure it'll end up in Oslo, too, but at this moment, no decisions has been made. I'm also very confident that NRK will announce it very clearly when they do make their decision, so there shouldn't be any need to actively hunt for articles mentioning it. TrondM (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the website "The Norway Post" which is an online version of their newspaper; it has been announced by NRK that the 2010 contest WILL be held in Oslo. Read this article for CONFIRMATION. [3] (Pr3st0n (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Norway Post does not decide where ESC will be held. Oslo is obviously the most likely venue - but no official decision has been made yet. TrondM (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from on this TrondM, but the Norway Post held an interview with NRK, and it was they (NRK) who confirmed to the Norway Post that Oslo is the host. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)). There is a line in that article in The Norway Post which reads "The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) will host next year's ESC competition final in Oslo. This will be the third time Norway hosts an ESC final." so are we to believe that this is inaccurate information and unreliable source of it? (Pr3st0n (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Of course you are. First of all, the article does not mention an interview at all. Second, if there was an interview, who did they interview? They can't interview the entire organisation, so who did they speak to? The CEO? A receptionist? Who? Third, if NRK already made their decision, why would Svante Stockselius even bother coming to NRK next week to discuss the possible venues? TrondM (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You got a good point there. Anyway, I took upon myself to email the editors of The Norway Post, to find out who within the NRK they spoke, to have obtained tis information, as it could be deemed as misleading to readers. I await their reply, and will post it on my talk page. (Pr3st0n (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I have been reading articles on NRK.no website; and they want to change the dates of the ESC as they clash with 2 events already planned to take place during the same week. 17 May 2010 is Norway's National Day; and the weekend of the ESC 2010 Final; Norway is also hosting a football final. The dates in the article here on Wiki seem to show 18, 20, and 22 May as definite dates. Would it be OK for me to re-word this section of the article? (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

The actual big reason is that the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final will also be held on 22 May (first to played on Saturday rather than Wednesday). -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[4] yea, its about moving because of the Champions League final. chandler ··· 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The location will be announced at a press conference today (May 27th) at 3PM local time. [5] (norwegian article) TrondM (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No surprises - the decision is Oslo. The exact venue has not been decided yet. Also, the competition has been pushed back a week, to avoid a clash with the UEFA Champions League final TrondM (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Spain has not confirmed it his participation in the Eurovision 2010 because this year a boycott has taken place(been produced) to españa in the festival

The article does not say that it has confirmed its participation, so what is the problem. If you would like to add to the article that there is a boycott, then please provide a reliable source to back it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous stories flying around several Eurovision sites on the Internet, stating that Spain is pulling out of the contest all together, in a similar manner of that which Italy did a few years ago. One report states that TVE viewing figures are poor, and Spain's poor results over the years are also a contributing factor to their reasons for pulling out of Eurovision for an indefinite period. I'll keep a close eye on this, and delve deeper into this scoop, and provide more accurate details once I find them. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Spain sí se va ha retirar, lo digo yo que soy spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.218.213 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who added Spain in the WITHDRAWAL section already? I was shocked to see this added so soon, despite what I mentioned above. I've spoken to my reliable source within the EBU, and he has confirmed that the EBU are investigating Spanish broadcaster TVE, for its delayed broadcasts of ESC2009; but this information is still at investigation level between the EBU and TVE. An official statement/decision hasn't even been agreed yet. The EBU are giving TVE 2 options, either pay a very hefty fine, or face being banned from ESC for 5 years. TVE have yet to make a decision, and the saga still continues between EBU and TVE. I think Spain should be removed from the withdrawals, until an official statement has been published either by the EBU or TVE. (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Small Grammatical Error

The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) has announced that it will work harder to bringing back...

Should that not be bring? (I can't edit the page to correct) Crayzeepete (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be either 'bring' or some one forgot to add 'in', fixed now, thanks. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted line about automatic qualifiers

The line about Azerbaijan and Iceland having already qualified for the 2010 contest was nonsense. It is common knowledge that only the host country and "Big 4" (France, Germany, Spain, UK) do not have to qualify through the semi finals for a place in the final. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When I reworded it, I took out the part that it was said in a press conference. I suppose we should wait for an actual source first. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore Vauxhall to your "Big 4" things; I would like to add that if (and that's a BIG IF), Italy return to the contest in 2010; that THEY will also auto-qualify to the finals, as part of the Big 5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Based on what evidence? The EBU has never said that Italy would be part of a Big 5. This is just speculation. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Italy have always been the 5th financial provider to the EBU. It's always been known for as long as I've been into Eurovision (which is a little over 2 decades now) that Italy, along with France, Germany, Spain, and the UK make up the traditional "Big-5". Even if you look on the Eurovision,tv history, it shows in there about Italy being part of the Big 5. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)).

Italy may be the 5th biggest contributor to the EBU. That doesn't mean there will be a 'Big 5' in the (unlikely) event Italy returns to the contest. Show me any official EBU source saying that Italy will auto-qualify for the final if they were to come back. There has never been such an EBU statement. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Vauxhall, Considering the fact my cousin works for the EBU, and he will have access to that information - then I think he would be certain about the fact ITALY is part of the BIG-5. It was also said in 2008, when San Marino made its debut to the contest, by Mr Stockselius, that if Italy wished to return to the contest at any stage, they would be part of the "Big 5" and qualify automatically for the final. But if it's sources you want to back this up with, then here are the sources.[6][7][8]. And despite those 3 links, there are also numerous others, if you care to search on Google for them. (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Infobox: Number of Countries

hye, can I put in the infobox, the number of countries that have alredy confirmed their participation, for exemple: 9 (until now)? João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's best if you don't. It will just turn into another thing that we will have to constantly update and watch for vandalism. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, but i make this in PT Wiki since last year contest (from the begining) and i've never had any problem with this, but in English wiki are more people interest (and more vandalism) in this subject. thanks for the explantion bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

French Version of Wiki ESC 2010 Page

I just wanted to comment about the way our French counterparts produce their version of this ESC2010 page link. I'm very impressed with their layout and detailed information, covering all aspects of the forthcoming contest. Something similar to this would be ideal for our English version. Does anyone agree? (Pr3st0n (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

That would not fly here. Different wikis have different guidelines. I can tell you from experience that anything about possible or likely entries like that will not work here. An encyclopedia cannot speculate on who may or may not be participating, we can only say who is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NEW SECTION: Possible Début and Returning Participants

I've added a new section on "Possible Début and Returning Participants"; with the following context: Every year in the run up to the Eurovision Song Contest, speculations and rumours into Possible Début and Returning countries start to fly around many Eurovision Fansites across the Internet; some of which even find their way onto Wikipedia. These rumours and speculations must be discredited until official confirmation from each individual country is received. This is in the hope that random IPs from people who are not part of the WikiProject Eurovision will take note and prevent them from adding false information on possible countries EVER AGAIN! It's just a thoughtful idea which might work - worth while to test it out and see if it does!!! (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm not convinced it's a good idea - it's basically instructions to editors, rather than text for readers. Maybe have it as an HTML comment instead?

I do appreciate the motivation, however - anything to stop dodgy information being added has to be applauded - however I've already removed countries that were "sourced" - a reference stating that Greece wouldn't participate in Junior Eurovision was used to support the idea that Turkey was participating! You have to admire the imagination of some editors ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm not sure; it could be seen both ways as "Editors Instruction", but it also provides information about "rumours" which we must admit, do happen year after year. We should at least test the theory out and see if it does work. (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I also noticed the TURKEY thing, and every time I tried to remove it, it re-appeared within minutes. Got very frustrating I must say! (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

If that's the case, it should be cited. I'll see if I can dig a few up. I am still unhappy with this line: "These rumours and speculations must be discredited until official confirmation from each individual country is received." which does read precisely like an instruction to editors.

I warned an IP that added Turkey; haven't heard anything since so hopefully that's knocked it on the head!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That new paragraph needs to be sourced and I find it a little weird to mention wikipedia itself in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did it need to be sourced? The sourcing for that paragraph was on the very same page. I just forgotten to add the REF LINKS. At the time of writing it, I was also running late for work, and did a rapid-write, and was planning on tidying it up on my return home. My idea for writing it though was to help out with this constant random adding of possible debuts etc, from random people, and hope they would pay attention to it, and stop adding without sourcing this information first. Obviously my help was wrong once again. The only person to have praised me throughout is This flag once was red and I'm thankful to this person. Everyone else seems to cyber-slap me down. Why is this so? I get valid information via my cousin who works for the EBU in Switzerland, who I might add, doesn't need to give me this info, but does so out of the generosity of his own heart. Naturally the information needs to be sourced when its being added on here. But when things are being fed back to me before they get sent out to the press, then I feel I'm helping you lot out by sharing this information with you, and other readers. (Pr3st0n (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

It's nice that you have inside information and you can tell us editors, but it's not appropriate for the article unless it is sourced. It felt weird reading that paragraph which basically said don't edit wiki and add such and such. We need to think about the fact that wiki pages are mirrored in many places, so actually mentioning wiki and saying what you did in the section does not work for the other mediums. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. You're very welcome btw with the fact I'm sharing "inside" information with you. I suppose in future I will add this type of info via my own (talk). To be honest Stephen, at times it does feel like I'm being personally attacked via cyber space for the fact that I have an opinion and given the impression that I'm not allowed to express that on here. Some of the things which have been said to me on here do have a very harsh tone in them. Perhaps people in general should be a little bit more sensitive towards others, and use tact and be civil when replying. Just Remember Folks: WP:CIVIL (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Paragraph about Kazakhstan; Palestine; Qatar.

This paragraph should be removed really; when you read the reference link attached to it <re>http://www.esckaz.com/new/en/blog/ebu-and-eurovisiontv-press-conference</ref>, it referrers to Kazakhstan not being eligible to participate in the 2009 contest. The article from ESCKaz was written prior to the 2009 contest; and quotes "Kazakhstan will broadcast the contest this year" meaning 2009. It also continues on with "but is not eligible to join in future" which confirms that Kazakhstan is therefore not permitted to participate in ANY ESC contest. Then it continues on with "Same goes for any countries geographically located out of the zone". As Qatar and Palestine are IN the EBU zone, this does not prove that those two nations have been rejected to take part in any future contest, including 2010. Information is suppose to be reliable and true with facts. However, this link being used in connection to the on-going "Qatar/Palestine" debate is not showing true facts; on the contrary it is only backing up the fact that Kazakhstan is not permitted to be in the contest, along with nations who are out of the EBU Zone. (Pr3st0n (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

It just needs to be rewritten, the out of the zone comment is still relevant. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Kazakhstan is forbidden to participate in Eurovision,i.e. to be an EBU member?As far as iknow 5% of the territory of this country lies on European continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EBU membership is limited to those countries defined as being in the European Broadcasting Area. The EBA was defined some time ago, and seems to be based on networks of telegraph cables! It refers to the USSR, for example. That doesn't really answer your question, but might help you if you can find more up-to-date definitions for the EBA? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If the southeastern corner of the EBA is at 30°N 40°E, that means that not only is Qatar outside the zone, but so is Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Has the European Broadcasting Area been updated, or did EBU make exceptions for these three countries? TrondM (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia are out of the zone, yet are permitted to participate. Looks like the EBU bend the zone to suit themselves!!! (Pr3st0n (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Heh! I suspect the EBA has been updated - the version at European Broadcasting Area mentions the USSR. I'd guess that it's been updated to explicitly include countries that once formed the Western part of the USSR. Though I do like the idea of the EBU meeting in secret, smoke-filled rooms to carve up Europe, North Africa and Western Asia...! "One day the whole world will sing a song for Europe! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!" Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dayum you beat me to it This flag once was red, I was just about to mention that too hahaha. It does also say that the area includes Iraq, Jordan and Northern Saudi Arabia (which ironically Qatar is also in that area). Perhaps that's why the EBU have allowed Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and also considering Qatar, to participate. (Pr3st0n (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I have removed it for now, it seems like pure speculation from a blog. Other wikipedias claims different and it is a fact that their are more nations who are eligible to participate.(also outside this line as assumed in the blog text)--Judo112 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

hey, i've started to see wicht wikipedia page about this subject, and when i arrived to the russian wiki, i've seen taht they put Ucrane as a certain participant, but I went on the reference, and put it in a translator. the tranaslation wasn't very good, but i understood that "if sventela participate again in 2010...", could we acept that is a confirma participation just saing this? I leave here the referecense, so you can see to [9] cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

for Belarus will be created a new team for next year, so, the country will be participating certanly [10] João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

...

the debuting, returning and withdrawing countries are rigth? and Malta, the reference doesn't say anything about his participation João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the oficial venue will be present before Summer Holidays, so in the next 15 days we should alredy know where it will be (i've 85% sure that will be in Telenor Arena, but how can we get to this venue when in Oslo? it's no subway neither train, and the google earth doesn't show any stop bus :S do you know anything about this?) cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the contest. It's a place to discuss improving the article. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor transportation infrastructure is one of the biggest arguments against Telenor Arena. Also, the terrible acoustic properties of the hall makes it pretty likely that Oslo Spektrum will be preferred, even though it's very small. TrondM (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm not here anymore... i only wanted to know that because i'm thinking on it since the Norway victory... João P. M. Lima (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzgovina

i looked up the source and the references to the 2010 contest are only like a fan questions, if we consider that that is an official confirmation, so we should put France to in the list [11] João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Finalists and semi-finalists

I'm a little bit uncomfortable about using the headings Finalists and Semi-finalists in the Confirmed Participants section. The final rules for ESC2010 will probably not be published until December 2009 (the 2009 rules were published 18 December 2008). Even though next year's rules will probably be the same as 2009's rules, we won't know that for sure until EBU publishes the rules for the 2010 contest. TrondM (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a valid argument and would support just a confirmed section. We have no way of knowing if the rules will stay the same next year even if they most likely will. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

i red that the only the semi final voting system will change (but it's not confirm yet), the semi final voting will be equal to the final with the 50/50 system, and i think that the Big4 will continue, because last year EBU hava had all that work because of this contries, and decided to continue with this... so, i think that they will not change anything, only the semifinal voting system i guess (but this is what i red and i think) cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We know people may think the rules will stay the same, but it has not been announced that they will, so the two sections won't work right now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why will the Big4 not be direct qualifed? They are paying so much for this contest, so they can be directly in the final. Why wouldn't they be so next year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.111.156 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

They probably will, but anything can happen until the final rules are published. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly a point I was talking about a couple weeks ago - I said that we shouldn't have the headings Finalists and Semi-finalists in the Confirmed Participants section as we don't know if this is to be the case, and that 2010 rules hadn't been confirmed yet. However I was told I was talking non-sense and that these sub-sections should be included. Now someone else brings up the subject, everyone is agreeing with them, and opinion changes in the opposite direction. Don't wish to sound petty TrondM, on the contrary I agree with your comment - but it was something which I brought up first, and as usual I was snubbed at the time. (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Azerbaijan

Just wondering about Azerbaijan being a confirmed participant? I thought the EBU was investigating it for allegedly not showing Armenia's voting number etc? I don't actually know if that's true though :) ~~Rick~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.112.200 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Spain: confirm?

can we understand that in this article Spain as intentions to participate in 2010? In one part he says: Tras Soraya, los chicos del podcast propondrán su candidato ideal para Eurovisión 2010. If they coment on the subject, in TV and in one specially TV program dedicated to festival (especialy to Eurovision), it's a way of confirmation? João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the EBU will not sanction TVE [12], so it's likely that Spain will participate João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia

I'm not going to revert the link by User:Pr3st0n, but the translation of the announcement roughly reads (per Google Translation): "ESTONIA 2010 Song of the information is not yet official. But is expected to announce in 2009. In mid-October ERR of the Estonian Song 2010 competition, which brings all Estonian citizens or persons residing in Estonia to send songs. (Estonian Song 2009 competition will be announced in 14 October 2008.)". This to my mind does not confirm Estonia and the information seems somewhat dated ([...]will be announced in 14 October 2008). Furthermore, if you click on the Eurovisioon 2010 link [13] the site itself does not list Estonia.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read previous talks about Estonia (above in UK break-up section); as we agreed; Estonian TV network have gone to expense to create an Eesti Laul 2010 logo; which no network would go to this extent if they had no intentions to participate. As you rightfully pointed out in your "roughly google translation" ERR are going to call for songs in mid-October for Estonian Song 2010. Therefore concludes the fact that Estonia are participating in Oslo 2010. (Pr3st0n member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I beg to differ. Intention and confirmation are not the same things.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK AlexandrDmitri let's just re-cap this one by going through the context as found in Eesti Laul 2010 website bit by bit.

The first part "ERR are going to call for songs..." this informs the reader that ERR are inviting people to submit songs to them. The second part informs the reader when these songs are required "...in mid-October..." the timeline "Mid-October" is confirmation of when they want these songs in by. Now the third part "...for Estonian Song 2010." this context informs the reader that these songs to be submitted by mid-October are for Eurovision 2010. Now that is not exactly intention - more on the lines of CONFIRMATION. (Pr3st0n (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

OK User:Pr3st0n. I agree that it indicates confirmation to choose a song for the EESTI LAUL 2010 competition (based on information from 2008). The logo is for the EESTI LAUL 2010 competition. However I do not agree that it confirms participation in the ESC 2010 (which is what this article is about) - if that were the case, then why does their page EUROVISIOON 2010 - Kinnitatud osalejad (confirmed participants) not include Estonia? Whilst it is likely that this song will indeed be submitted for the ESC 2010, WikiPedia is not a crystal ball. There is no reference yet to confirmation in the 2010 ESC competition from Estonia just as France, which as a Big 4 (5?) country is likely to return but has not officially confirmed yet. I suggest that a third party comment on this matter so that we can resolve this matter as amicably as possible as I fear we will have to agree to disagree on the scope of this reference.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As Estonian I can assure that Estonia has not confirmed it's participation. The link what we had as reference was a eurovision-fan page who was sure that Estonia is participating. I'm sure of this too. But Estonian National Broadcasting hasn't confirmed or said absolutely anything about participating in Norway. By the way, the logo is changed version of 2009's logo. It's probably made by the fan who owns the site. Andry2109 (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Russia will confirm in during the Summer João P. M. Lima (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvia

The ref for the latvian confirmation, it's apropriate. They say that the country should be back in 2010 edition, but they were talking about a whitdrawl from the country, so that source doesn't confirm the participation of Latvia (it only could be acceptble if the country hadn't entered in ESC 2009) João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The break-up of the UK?

If you look at all the other language's pages on this event, you see that Wales, england, NI and Scotland are all marked down as ,,Possible Participants". And when you click on the links provided, it says the EBU says Scotland is allowed to participate, so long as the Scottish Parliament says it's ok. Should we put something like that up on this one? Zu Anto 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Scottish Parliament is considering this? I've not heard any discussion of this in Scotland... I'd be inclined to add it only once it's been confirmed. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago, a new apperded saying that the Scotish TV is "thinking" takiing Susan Boyle to Eurovision [14], some time ago, i've red that wales want to participat alone too, if these two participate alone, it shoul be certain the england (at least) and the northem irland woul participate as independent entrants, but nothing is confirm, the news are only based in thinkings of some people of scotish tv and parlement nothing else João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is only on the Russian Wikipedia which cites a possible break up of the UK. But even then, it does not have solid evidence to back it up properly. Mc95_talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

in my opinion UK should participate as one country not as four, but they know... never mind. Is this a "Estonian confirmation"? i've translated it in an automatic translator, but it's not very compreensive João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, a petition to try and persuade the Scottish Parliament to try and persuade the EBU to let Scotland compete...! To be fair, the SNP (the party currently in power in Scotland) do want Scotland to compete (I suspect this petition may ultimately be an SNP stunt), but the EBU have always said that it's the BBC that's the EBU member so it's Britain that goes to Eurovision. Either way, wait until it happens - at the moment it's just chatter about petitions. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the other Wikipedias may have been updated since the original post, but five minutes ago there were no references on any of them to the "break-up" of the UK. Whilst the ja, sr, ro, lv, mk and another I forgot to write down do not mention the United Kingdom yet, the rest have the UK either as a confirmed country or an automatic qualifier, with varying levels of referencing.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the UK had already confirmed it was to compete in 2010 as the UK; considering there is a sourced link next to the UK in the article; which when you click on the link, it takes you to twitter and that shows something about UK in 2010. However; the Estonian link is very interesting. By the looks of it they are participating in ESC2010; the webpage already shows the Eesti Laul 2010 logo in the top left corner of the page. I doubt Estonian TV network would go to the expense of creating a logo for Eesti Laul 2010, and not participate in Olso 2010. Should we now include Estonia in the confirmed participants with this in mind? (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I think yes, when i translated the article, i understood that they are alredy thinking in the selection process, and this one will be open soon João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though Scotland have been given the go-ahead to participate as an independent nation. Online version of Scottish newspaper Herald on 12 June 2009 have reported that the EBU have given Scotland permission to participate; and MEP Alyn Smith has also lobbied this in European Parliament. All they are waiting for now is one of the Scottish broadcasters to come forward. Does this provide enough evidence to include Scotland as a possible debut? (Pr3st0n (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

A possible debut, sure, but the article only lists confirmed entrants. I wonder how it would work - whether BBC Scotland would organise in Scotland, and the BBC organise in the rest of the UK? I think I'd prefer to see a consortium of STV and Border TV, purely because it would annoy the BBC ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, Scotland wanted to participate in 2009; but their request was declined because the EBU wouldn't allow it - 1 year on; and the EBU have now permitted Scotland's request. Now that Scotland have been given the go-ahead; they will 99.9% likely to participate. Its worth keeping a close eye on this one then?!?! (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I think so, yes. It would be hugely notable, given the UK's history as one of the Big 4/5. The BBC aren't reporting it on teletext yet, as far as I can see, but that's maybe not too surprising ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with This flag once was red, the article ony includes confirm countries, so Scotland shouln't go to the article, if it goes, we have to put all the other countries that can debut, and it's not fair to put this ones and not put the withrawing ones. But if Scotland participates alone, they have time to do it for 2010, i think that, if they go in 2010, their choice will be internly, choosing Susan Boyle, has was reported ([15]), but i don't no what UK will do if this happen, probably in the first year of scotish participation, the UK woul continue participating as UK, but after, all te four parts of the UK woul be independent to enter the show. It will be the end of the UK in ESC :( João P. M. Lima (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

but it's almost certanly that scotland will participate as a debut contry João P. M. Lima (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a forum for discussing the contest. Until a reputable source stating that Scotland (ou bien England, Wales or NI) will enter as a seperate contestant is published, no mention of it will be included in the article. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa hold on a sec Welshleprechaun. Although it might look like we're using this as forum discussion; it is on the contrary the opposite. We're merely talking about what we feel should and shouldn't be added, based upon information which we have found, in order to help improve the article (which is within the guideline as shown at the top of this page). (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)) P.S. Check the list of active users in the Wiki:Eurovision Project. You will find that I am in that list ;-) and have been for almost a year now. (Pr3st0n (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I didn't say you weren't a member! I don't mean to be rude but the criteria for inclusion is simple. No source - no inclusion. WP isn't a crystal ball and where some editors may feel that it's 99% certain Scotland will enter seperately, others may feel the opposite, so let's keep opinion and fact apart. Thanks. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, read ESC regulations carefully. Only ITU countries (= recognized countries by UN) can be represented at ESC. Even if STV could participate, it should do it under UK flag, in the same way RTBF and VRT competes under Belgian flag although they are regional broadcasters. A part of it, BBC holds EXCLUSIVE rights of broadcasting for all UK. The references about Scotland or Wales participation are not more than nationalist parties' wishes, and no valid as references. Under the current ESC rules, Scotland can't participate as a separate country 100% sure. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.127.181 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotland; England; Wales; and Northern Ireland ARE recognized by the UN as countries. They are also recognized by the EBU; as each regional broadcaster have full active membership within the EBU. In 2008, Scotland approached the EBU in the hope of participating in ESC2009 as a débutante. The EBU at that time declined the Scottish request. 1 year later, and now the EBU are allowing Scotland to participate as a nation. However, none of the Scottish broadcasters have come to a decision about ESC2010 participation. STV were the broadcaster which made the initial request in 2008. So its a waiting game to see if Scotland will participate in 2010, now that the EBU have permitted this to happen. (Pr3st0n (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Don't forget about Wales! Wales has had a Eurovision pre-selection for as long as the UK has (Cân i Gymru), Wales already has an EBU broadcaster (S4C) and both before and after the 2009 European elections Plaid Cymru & more notably Jill Evans MEP have said that they will work closely with the SNP to get Wales into the Eurovision Song Contest Drigioni (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not recognized by UN as countries (check www.un.org). The reference posted about EBU allowing Scotland to particpate as a nation 1) it was really posted on February of 2008 2) it was a manipulation about an statement of an EBU source (undetermined) about the possibility of an Scottish TV of sending an entry. EBU clarified one day later that it was really a matter of BBC and if it wanted to alternate with another broadcaster (STV or whatever) the right of representation. Check www.esctoday.com of 2008-02-11. That would be the same case of Belgium. BBC claimed no interest in changing the ESC situation and holds exclusively the rights for all UK territory. EBU doesn't allow any country to send two entries. If UK would send two entries (UK/England and Scotland), countries like Sweden or Netherlands, with several broadcasters member of EBU could do the same. So STOP manipulating references or make inventions like Scotland is an UN nation. I think the master of this wikiproject should block any article regarding this topic due to nationalist vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.33.152 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To 90.163.33.152 a few things if I may...
1] I am not manipulating and have not manipulated anything here - all I have done is take part in a valid discussion about Scotland's possible participation.
[2] I have a cousin who works for the EBU; so I think I would know at least something behind the scenes.
[3] The UN DO recognize. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which comprises of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. Even the official name of the country as shown on the UN website which you kindly provided shows the name of the UK just as I have written it here. When you visit the UK Mission in the UN website; there are several mentions about Scotland, Wales, England, N.Ire, being seen as UN members under the pseudonym of UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN & NORTHERN IRELAND. Despite the original posting on ESCtoday about Scotland was posted in February 2008 (to which the EBU refused a Scotland Nation Debut); it was since again mentions in Scottish Newspaper "The Herald" in June 2009 that this time the EBU have allowed Scotland to debut as a nation; if a Scottish TV Network wishes to take responsibility for their national selections and broadcasting rights. I await your apologies in due course especially with your unrequited liable assault in which you accuse me of manipulation. Kindest Regards (a very disheartened and angry member of the Wikiproject:Eurovision team) (Pr3st0n (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Where is exactly the June 2009 article in "The Herald" you're referring to? Please, provide the link. [16] quoted above dates to February. AlexeyU (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the posting that I made on 12 June 2009 (above), the link to "The Herald" is in there. (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

Pr3st0n, AlexeyU linked to the your link. AlexeyU is querying whether your link dates to May or earlier. I have no idea either way - the article is undated and my paper copies of The Herald get thrown out once a week... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is from February. See it quoted in Digital Spy discussion on 11th of February [17]AlexeyU (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AlexeyU, I read that article on Digital Spy too, and it does look almost identical to that one as shown on the Herald online. Although when I read the one in the Herald (online) the paper was dated May 2009, which suggests to me that it was published at that time via the online newspaper. Perhaps sending an email to the Herald to confirm when they published the article would resolve this confusion??? (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Oslo or Bærum

the short answer is Bærum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.66.3 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It just seems to me that there really is no conformity on where the contest will be held. In a number of pages it's listed as Oslo, and other pages list it as Bærum. From what I've read, Bærum is a municipality, part of the Greater Oslo Region, so I believe we should refer to it as Oslo, rather than Bærum. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bærum is where telenor arena is. it is located in akershus. the greater oslo area is oslo as well as the areas around,(the true oslo area is the county of oslo.) but it is only used to discribe how the buses are run. the greater oslo area dont truly exist it is just a name used by a former company that were running busses in oslo as well as akershus.

yes, i agree with you, the contest will be in Oslo, specificly in Baerum, the maximum that we can do is leave the Baerum together with Oslo.

bye the way, the source of Turkey, is an official one? It realy confirms the country participation, I've tranlated it in an automatic translater and didn't seem to me that that is an oficial confirmation João P. M. Lima (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

the contest will be held in Bærum. the greater oslo area is just a norwegian lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.66.3 (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC) i can confirm that the contest will be held in Bærum in the county of akershus. however the host broadcaster nrk insists on lying about it. (nrk say oslo as a lie.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.66.3 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to state that Baerum is not a suburb of Oslo? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Baerum as a "city SE Norway, a suburb of Oslo population 100,013". -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bærum is ruled from the town of sandvika.(that is where the center of Bærum is) telenor arena is located in Bærum. logic therefore dictates that eurovision song contest 2010 will be held in Bærum. Bærum lies in the county of akershus which is the neigbor of the county of oslo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.66.3 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So WTF?

How is it that the number of participating countries keeps fluctuating madly like some loony on a pogo stick?Zu Anto 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Because a number of people (very often anon IPs) keep adding in unreferenced or incorrectly referenced information. There are a number of us who try and catch this but sometimes the edits come in thick and fast... AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, ain't that the truth ;-) As a general rule, if a new country is added then it won't be referenced. If it is referenced, the reference won't support the claim - I've seen articles citing, say, Norway's participation being used to support the claim that, say, New Zealand is participating! (OK, NZ is a joke example, but the claims - and the references used to support them - made on this article have been amusing quite frequently. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The worst I have seen is IPs copying and pasting other references and changing the titles to make what is being claimed then look genuine until you actually click on the link. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Could this page be temporarily semi-protected to stop unsourced rumours of participating nations getting in? An earlier edit went as far to saying Ivory Coast, United States, Jamaica & even Sealand would be participating. --TardisShell (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering the same thing myself. I would be inclined to request semi-protection. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is pretty stable right now, and likely to remain so until ESC2010 draws nearer. I'd have no objection to semi-protection - IP and non-autoconfirmed users can always post here on the talk page if they become aware of something genuine that needs to be added. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't have any strong opinion on semi-protection, though I am rather too involved with this article to impartially semi-protect the page myself. I would recommend filing a request at WP:RFPP. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your ceaseless efforts to improve this article, as well as all of the Eurovision Song Contest are highly appreciated Christopher. After yet another inclusiong by an anon IP for Finland participating in the contest in 2010 (reference actually to Azerbeijan) I may be the one to make the request. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC). Update: have requested temporary semi-protection. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Good job. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments Alexander. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's protected now, and I thought I'd go through the references to make sure that all made sense. Just prior to this, I'd reverted the addition of Turkey because the reference simply said that Turkey was selecting potential representatives (i.e. it didn't confirm that Turkey was definitely participating). Some of the current references basically say the same, so... what's the standard for accepting that a country is participating? A reference that states that explicitly, or a reference that states that a country is selecting its representative? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to be conservative and demand a explicit confirmation of participation, and in many cases it is just a matter of waiting for it, though I recognise the issue is open to debate. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Order

Hi everybody!!! Only an Idea, but I think it wuold be much more interesting if the Order of participating Countries would be the Order they announced to participate. Alphabetic is so boring, uninteresting, idealess & stupid anyway--78.43.85.139 (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical is fairer, though - I can imagine endless disputes about who announced when, and whether we could reference the announcement dates!

As the article develops (as we get nearer to the event) it's quite likely that the current list will be turned into a table, and we could include announcement date then. Tables can be set up so that they can be sorted on various columns, so if we had announcement date then readers could sort on that if they wished.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that dates for "announcements" could be potentially controversial - at the moment we don't even seem to agree on what constitutes an announcement (per your highly pertinent comment in the section above). The 2009 article post event simply lists countries by alphabetical order, with italics for those not making it to the finals and strikeouts for withdrawals (well just Georgia actually). I'm all for precision and detail but at the expense of spending our time in endless debates when we could be improving the quality of the article? AlexandrDmitri (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you all, the exact datas of confirmation of wich country ;) In portuguese wikipedia, sinse last year edition (2009, not realy the last year but you understand), I make a calender where the principal datas of Eurovision are posted, and i'm uploading the 2010 calender regulary (always whem happens a new confirmation and staffs like that). I'm thinking putting the country's flags in wich date [18] cheers João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references for all the dates? That would be the big stumbling block on en.wiki. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've many refs for wich confirmation, but to confirm the dates you have to enter in all sites and match the date (but I can tell you that the datas are all corret, because I add that marks to the calender, when a country confirms, for example, if Spain confirm his participation in 5 minutes space, that will apear on the calender, after I have shourt that is true, so the dates are correct) João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

here you have the 2009 Eurovision Calender, but this one is not complete :S João P. M. Lima (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Three problems, 1. you can not reference another Wikipedia. 2. References should preferably be in English and 3. Even the Pt Wiki has no references on any dates. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 07:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The calender doesn't has any reference, but the dates are correct, because when I put a new item on the list, I put it on the same day that I add it to the main theme page (in this case Eurovision 2010, the references are there) João P. M. Lima (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic but as User:AxG points out, no references, no inclusion per the five pillars of WP. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC). I note that the Portugese version does not have the requirement for sources, and that unsourced material will be removed [19]. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can put references, but it will be the same ones that appear in the main article, and the datas will not change, i know that they are correct, because the facts were added while the information was coming (and is) out João P. M. Lima (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Strictly against. In fact, date of confirmation of participation is the date when national broadcaster sends official confirmation letter of participation to EBU. This has nothing to do with dates of publications. Again, in many cases, national broadcasters do send confirmation letter of participation to EBU, but they are not obliged to announce their participation otherwise. They are only obliged to announce on their websites a method and rules of the preselection, and there may be monthes between confirmation of participation and announcement of preselection scheme. AlexeyU (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo in 2010?

I have read that Kosovo is really going all out to be a part of the Eurovision 2010 and send a singer. Anyone else who knows any news on Kosovos participation? It feels very unlikely that Serbia or Russia withdraw even if Kosovo entered as both countries for example competes against Kosovo at Miss Universe for example. And as the Eurovision is so popular in both countries i hardly think they would sacrifice their participation just becuase of Kosovo. Anyone else who has an opinion on that.--Judo112 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well they attempted in 2009, but as Radio Television of Kosovo was not a member of the EBU, it could not participate. According to the EBU's website [20], RTK is not yet a member, and that's the criteria for admission to the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to explain the user adding Lebanon, Qatar, Liechtenstein and Kosovo as potential debutes that we currently add only confirmed participating countries to the table and it is not the place for speculation. He states that Qatar Radio has got a EBU membership, however, there are no statements to support it, and other sources state that Liechtenstein's 1FL and Belarus ONT membership will be considered only in December. Also, during press-conference in Moscow it was clearly stated by EBU that they will not be accepting any more members from outside set geographical borders (like Qatar). There are no confirmed reports from Kosovo and Qatar even submitting membership application and no information when it may be submitted or discussed. At this point Liechtenstein is the one closest to participation, as application has been submitted and they declared that once it is approved they will join Eurovision, but it is already featured in article. Kosovo, Qatar and Lebanon are pure speculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyU (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well caution must be taken with anything Kosovo related and it is highly controversial and even including broadcasting information about Kosovo in the 2009 ESC article caused objections. If there are reliable sources saying that x country is planning to participate in the 2010 contest then I am happy to report in the article. Membership of the EBU however is not enough because it is original research to go a step further and claim in the article that means they may participate in ESC 2010. Mentioning of Kosovo last year was justified as there was serious talk among reliable sources of participation that year, even if it did not come to anything in the end. In fact that information should probably be re-introduced into the ESC 2009 article to give a full history. I am not aware of such coverage this year, so hence Kosovo should stay out until there is. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, what we need is a) fact that broadcaster is already an active member of EBU, b) reliable source statement that it has decided to enter Eurovision Song Contest 2010. If there is only 1 of those 2 points it should not be enough for inclusion of them. AlexeyU (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The EBU maintains a list of active members. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For confirmed participation yes, but for possible participation reliable sourcing saying what is claimed will do, as is currently the case in the article with Italy. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused - do you mean Lichtenstein in this instance (Italy is listed as an active member by the EBU)? -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Lichtenstein would be a better example for this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Twitter as a WP:RS

I agree with the revert for Armenia as a participating country using Twitter as a reliable source. However, that rather does make the UK's inclusion in the list as unreliable, which has bothered me for a while. I held off doing anything about it as I have dual nationality including British, so did not feel entirely impartial. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're quite right! I live in the UK, but don't hold UK citizenship - not sure whether that makes me impartial or not. Regardless, I reckon get rid of it until it's confirmed. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

However, this link [21] does seem more appropriate. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good find! I've updated the article accordingly. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it while reviewing the article but decided to tolerate it for the moment, though I agree that using Twitter as a source is probably not a good idea. Well done on finding a better page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable references

A number of anonymous IPs continuously add supposedly confirmed participants with either no reference or references that I would say do not confirm their participation. Some notable examples include the same refs used for Estonia, Malta and Latvia. For many reasons these are not acceptable, because:

• Estonia: the ref presented (http://www.hot.ee/eestilaul2010/) contains no confirmation on its participation,a nd only includes links that also lead to nothing to do with 2010 - they either link to information on the 2009 selection, or contain no info on 2010.
• Malta: The link given (http://www.maltaeurosong.com/page/en/63/News.aspx) has no information on 2010 at all yet
• Latvia: The links given for Latvia (such as at oikotimes.com) do not apply any more due to the fact that Latvia participated in 2009, and didn't withdraw after all.

Please refrain from using these refs in the futrue, as they will be deleted. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed the reference for Armenia Erste Informationen aus Armenien as the blog entry has no references. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be translation of the statement Armenian head of delegation gave to ESCKaz [22] and this should be considered as confirmation of their participation. AlexeyU (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(←outdent) Removed the reference to San Marino. "The Italomaltese singer, Claudia Faniello seems that she could be approached by the state television of San Marino due she to her dual passport. It will be a huge surprise if Malta allows this thing to happen in a time when the country needs a singer like Claudia and repeat past mistakes like loosing Kevin Borg who will probably present songs to other countries , especially if the country actually wants to bid for a high rank in the eurovision scoreboard." is nothing but rumour and speculation. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a requirement

Once again, we are getting regular insertions/revertions on countries without references, despite the template reminding the need for sourcing. Just removed an entire section on "Unsure countries". If this continues I shall request semi-protection again, this time for a longer period. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Oh, look like TFOWR hit save a millisecond before me -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)):

Semi-protection requested -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And has been granted for a month with autoexpire. Regards and thanks -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Debuting Countries?

• Kosovo's RTK has applied for EBU membership which should also be validated by 2010, meaning it will be able to take part in the 2010 contest, after failing to enter the 2009 contest, after it's break up from Serbia.

• Lebanon's ban after refusing to broadcast Israel's entry or display it on their official eurovision website has now been lifted, although their entry into the contest hasn't been confirmed.

• Liechtenstein's; 1FLTV has applied for EBU membership, and membership should be validated by the end of 2009, meaning it will be able to take part in the contest.

• Qatar's Qatar Radio has recently received EBU membership, earlier than expected and is interested in joining the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest.

Qatar is not eligible, and Kosovo won't be recognized by some countries, and Lebanon won't recognize Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.156.17 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The question of eligible countries are discussed at all times but Qatar has according to many ESC websites been given OK to enter when they are granted membership. Kosovo is another issue.--Judo112 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Any country is OK to enter, when they are granted full "active membership". It was clearly noticed though at EBU press-conference during Moscow Eurovision that Kazakhstan, Qatar and other Asian countries can apply only for "associate membership" while this does not provide eligibility to enter Eurovision. AlexeyU (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Qatar just on the boundary of the EBU broadcasting area? If so, then wouldn't that make them eligible to participate? (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

There have already been discussions that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are all outside of the EBA. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well with that in mind then, I'm guessing that the EBU have expanded their EBA, sounds more logical. (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)) - OK done some checking into the "Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan" situation, and how they have been permitted participation into ESC, despite the fact they are outside the EBA. For a nation to be granted permission to participate in any ESC they MUST be an active member of the EBU. Active members are those whose states fall within the European Broadcasting Area, or otherwise those who are members of the Council of Europe. Georgia became a member of this council on 27 April 1999; both Armenia and Azerbaijan joined on 25 January 2001. Therefore, they are granted permission to participate ESC. Belarus are not part of this council, however they are a member of the EBU. Liechtenstein have been reported to be submitting EBU membership. Hopefully this should help to clarify the reasons behind why they are allowed to take part in ESC. (Pr3st0n (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Why do you think, Armenia, Georgia & Azerbajcan are outside the EBA? The EBAs Borders are 30° North & 40° East. That means, that not only Armenia, Georgia & Azerbajcan are in, even the Iraq & Saudi-Arabia would be eligable to join the EBU. Syria was Part of the EBU long ago. The only Country, which is really not in EBA is Quatar.--78.43.168.100 (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria are inside the EBA, but you are wrong about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. In 40th meridian east none appear but in 41st meridian east Georgia appears. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, sorry, you are right...Forget my Regrets:-)...it looks like my Worldmap in not that exactly:-D--78.43.168.100 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the answers to this thread will be revealed to us all once the EBU have held their meeting in Oslo this Friday 11 September 2009. Allegedly this is also when the EBU will inform Liechtenstein, Kosovo and Qatar if their applications for active membership have been granted. So let's wait until then, and see if they get their active membership; which if they do, no doubt they will let the whole of Europe know they are attending Oslo 2010. (Pr3st0n (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Suggestion on azerbaijan-armenia conflict

Wouldnt it be better if we put all the information from Eurovision Song Contest 2009 about the azeri-armeni conflict into a separate article like: Armenia-Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest or Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in the Eurovision Song Contest or similar. Seems like an issue that will go on for quite some time.. with a latest development today.--Judo112 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would only be an issue if one of them dropped out of the contest next year, then it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewls1993 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Azerbaijan is considering participation in the Asiavision Song Contest also. But I can't remember the website, as it was a couple of weeks ago when I came across it, and have been busy working solid hours since. Just wondering if anyone else is aware of this news/rumour? (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

As earlier mentioned isnt it time for this issue to have its own article as it seems to grow and grow...?--Judo112 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems to be spilling over into this year then yes I do think a new article would be helpful. Eurovision Song Contest 2009 is also getting huge and it would be good if some content was split off elsewhere. Not sure on the title, Armenia-Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest or Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest seem fine. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen makes it seem like they are a team or some sort of joined country so I would prefer the latter if we chose this path. I feel like the title could be a little more specific though since we already have separate pages for both Armenia and Azerbaijan in the contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes been more specific on might work, I would generally avoid loaded words in page titles such conflict or controversy as a matter of principle as they are often over used, but many good articles have been written with such terms in the title for example Essjay controversy, so it can work. Articles which have avoided it include Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. The dictionary definition of controversy is A debate, discussion of opposing opinions. The one that most fits for conflict is To be at odds (with); to disagree or be incompatible. Neither fit perfectly for Azerbaijan and Armenia, but both seem appropriate. Not everything in the ESC 2009 controversy section really fits these definitions however, hence the current discussion at WT:ESC. Titles I can think of then include Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Eurovision Song Contest or even Armenia-Azerbaijan relations and the Eurovision Song Contest. Relations seems like a very neutral word and the definition The manner in which two things may be associated. fits well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Did a compromize of the different suggestions Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest hold a discussion first on the new articles discussion page if you dont agree with the name.--Judo112 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the current name, though if anyone thinks they can do better they can always propose it on the article talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Absence of Monaco

Here is a reliable source, add it if you don't want to unblock the voice: http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6325 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.20.33 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added it. The protection is scheduled to expire on the 15 September by the way. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Shall we now begin to have tables?

I have a question about tables. On the Swedish wikipedia (which, incidentally, I am a member), we have a couple of months back started to leave the countries of the tables, then the country with the artist, track, national competitions and dates on which each country will have. I personally think that this should be here with, although it has not yet been confirmed by some artists and songs. But I will not edit this until I have confidence from your administrators. So my question is: can I fix this or not? And if not, I would like to have an explanation. /Hollac16 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is not the role of administrators to decide article content in most circumstances. Past consensus has been to put more detailed information such as national selection dates and national selection information in the articles for each entry e.g. Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010, and such articles are created as the information becomes available. I am generally against creating temporary columns in the tables which have to be got rid of later as it recentism and gives a "current events noticeboard", rather than encyclopedic, feel to the article. When tables are created I think it would better that they will be like that which will appear in the completed article i.e. like the ones at Eurovision Song Contest 2009#Results. Though, I have to say I think it is a little premature for those at present, a participants list will do for now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is to early for the Swedish Wikipedia to have tables now also? I created them there and there were no problems at all. I don't understand your "hate" against tables!? /Hollac16 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't hate tables, in fact I like tables a lot, I just do not think this article is ready for tables yet. I do not speak Swedish so I can't speak for what happens over on that project, but what happens on a project is up to editors on that project, and practices will often be different from one project to another. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120607221031/http://www.cybc.com.cy/index.php?option=com_content to http://www.cybc.com.cy/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=460:55-eurovision-2010&catid=52:2009-08-27-10-36-13&Itemid=259

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160124012146/http://www.escflashmalta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033:breaking-news-and-the-spokesperson-is&catid=2:latest-news-international&Itemid=2 to http://www.escflashmalta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033:breaking-news-and-the-spokesperson-is&catid=2:latest-news-international&Itemid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323171656/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15240 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15240
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100403080432/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15210 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15210
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100322200925/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15404 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15404
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15046
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100314225318/http://www.esctoday.com:80/news/read/15370 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15370
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100528104922/http://eurovision.ndr.de:80/hintergruende/deutschejury102.html to http://eurovision.ndr.de/hintergruende/deutschejury102.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120408070337/http://www.evropesma.org/forum55/index.php?topic=870.msg144606 to http://www.evropesma.org/forum55/index.php?topic=870.msg144606#msg144606

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324022238/http://www.esconnet.dk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=264&Itemid=174 to http://www.esconnet.dk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=264&Itemid=174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527154823/http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=5842 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=5842
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131050935/http://esctoday.com/news/read/14182 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14182
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211002140/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12655 to http://esctoday.com/news/read/12655
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807045844/http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6154 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6154
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922134553/http://esctime.com/news/94 to http://esctime.com/news/94
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810203913/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12899 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12899
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.esckaz.com/mp3/Erichsen.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206021844/http://oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6452 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6452
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.esctime.com/news/105
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091106075857/http://esctoday.com/news/read/14466 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14466
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723064838/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14202 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207174628/http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6085 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6085
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024094502/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14416 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14416
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206005422/http://oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6846 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=6846
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217234754/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14630 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14630
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108103904/http://esctoday.com/news/read/14767 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/14767
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527091611/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/oslo2010/voting to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/oslo2010/voting
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210034203/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15042 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15042
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605020826/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=1513 to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-year/contest?event=1513
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603054314/http://eurovision.ndr.de/hintergruende/showtermin100.html to http://eurovision.ndr.de/hintergruende/showtermin100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926224033/http://www.ecgermany.de/ESC%202010/Oslo%20Tagebuch/17.Mai.htm to http://www.ecgermany.de/ESC%202010/Oslo%20Tagebuch/17.Mai.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904225043/http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=7925 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=7925
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229083849/http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8201 to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=8201
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927132647/http://www.rtp.pt/programas-rtp/index.php?p_id=26132&e_id=&c_id=5&dif=tv to http://www.rtp.pt/programas-rtp/index.php?p_id=26132&e_id=&c_id=5&dif=tv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529230742/http://bnt.bg/bg/programme/index/2/bnt_sat/25-05-2010 to http://bnt.bg/bg/programme/index/2/bnt_sat/25-05-2010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522035128/http://tvradio.ert.gr/en/worldprogram.asp?pday=145 to http://tvradio.ert.gr/en/worldprogram.asp?pday=145

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eurovision Song Contest 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308155747/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/press/photo-downloads?gal=7633&type=Press to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/press/photo-downloads?gal=7633&type=Press
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5q8fwK4CH?url=http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/genteytelevision/2010/05/29/00031275160815264486424.htm to http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/genteytelevision/2010/05/29/00031275160815264486424.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317062647/http://eurosongcontest.phpbb3.es/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=20310&start=45 to http://eurosongcontest.phpbb3.es/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=20310&start=45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)