Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

Can someone else agree that the UK will split into the home nation, there are no sources out there to confirm this. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not found anything which suggests this either, and I would be personally surprised if it went ahead. Camaron1 | Chris 17:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That is impossible... Because only sovereign nations are allowed to become members of the EBU... Otherwise, you would have seen Kosovo and Northern Cyprus competing.. Since is more likely for them to join than for Scotland... That was just ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Moldova

I can finally say that,after visiting the Moldovan National Television TRM website,can confirm that Moldova will participate in Eurovision in Belgrade. Link here: http://trm.md/index.php?module=proiect_int&proiect_id=5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another link to prove this news is: http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/9559. I have removed Moldova and the section 'Possible Withdrawels' from the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.151.0 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

According to http://esckaz.com/2008/ Moldova has only confirmed preliminary it's participation but as budget still is not allocated, the participation is not 100% definite. Like last year they will first consider entries and singers entered to decide definitely about participation in December Zaqqq 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Euro?? vision

I don' want to offend anybody, but it getting beyond a joke really. The Eurovision song contest started off between the European countries, then it spread to Eastern Europe which is fine because they are in Europe, but to have North african countries and arabic countries in it aswell is going too far. A) they are not in Europe and B) there is enough countries already taking part, i mean the officials have already introduced new systems to eliminate countries (Semi Final). And, I have always wondered how Israel is in it aswell? I don't mean to be rude, but you can see my point! Hamilton365 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Macedonia confirmed participation: Link: http://www.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=143109&idg=7&idb=2215&rubrika=%40ivot Tittle: ИСТЕКУВА РОКОТ ЗА ПРИЈАВУВАЊЕ ЗА ИЗБОРОТ НА ПЕСНА ЗА ЕВРОВИЗИЈА Македонија го чека новиот шеф на делегација —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Ukryan1992 (talk · contribs) added a clean-up tag to the article without comment. Can I ask that he/she please say what in the article needs cleanup, so I can try and make the corrections. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New information issues

I have noticed a lot of new info has been added recently on countries and there possibility of entering the contest. However a lot of it is unsourced (see WP:V) and is not in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedic article (see WP:NPOV,WP:OR). I am going to clean/remove the text tagged shortly unless any objections are raised. Camaron1 | Chris 11:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenia, Georgia and Montenegro still UNCONFIRMED

Is very likely that Armenia and Georgia will participate in the next contest, however if you dont provide a reliable source, because if we start confirming countries out of nowhere.. Then people will start putting Italy, Algeria and Kosovo as confirmed participants.

According to esctoday.com, Montenegro might withdraw from the contest... Therefore, is NOT a confirmed participant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BUT Montenegro confirmed a long time ago that it will participate on THAT same esctoday.com website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they did, in this article. The new article provides hardly any new information, it merely states Montenegro has not announced rules for their national selection but it doesn't mean they are planning to withdraw. 91.155.222.226 07:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The same question was happening with Macedonia.Macedonia confirmed that it will participate according to the newspaper,however Macedonia didn't give to the EBU any informations regarding the fee that needs to be paid for participating in the contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia is confirmed by the broadcaster Zaqqq 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgia is confirmed, they are accepting entries till November 17th Zaqqq 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we have to search About Armenia.As I saw on their eurovision song contest website,their website look untouched and unupdated,for next year song contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK until now we have the following: Armenia-confirmed holding an internal selecgtion with artist Sirusho Georgia-confirmed most likely will have a national final Montenegro-???confirmed participant?Today is the 15th and still not an answer.>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We are coming up to the stage now where countries are either in the contest, or they are not; in fact all countries had to decide if they are participating by today. I would suggest at some point in the future when the contents of the final participants list becomes clear we merge "Possible new and returning participants", "Possible withdrawals", and "Other EBU members" into Non-participants, with a quick comment next to each country on their reasons for not taking part i.e Montenegro - After failing to win a place in the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest final in Helsinki with their debut entry as an independent country, the national broadcaster did not publish any plans to participate again in 2008 contest. Camaron1 | Chris 18:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But im quite sure Montenegro will participate.However their website:eurovision.rtcg.cg.yu remains untouched and unupdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 entries pages

so.. can anyone tell em what is wrong about putting the national final details on those pages.. I was doing a couple on friday, and suddenly they were all deleted (only Andorra was left). It would be nice to have all those pages open, so members can add information about the National finals.. I won't do it again, because I don't wanna write all of them again, just to get them deleted a few hours later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a few articles,for Serbia,Bosnia and Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of bold tags for countries

I am little confused on why the non-participant countries are all marked in bold. I removed the bold tags but they were re-added without comment. There is no reason given in the article for them to be in bold, and it does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). With the new layout, the use of bold to mark confirmed countries is now redundant. I am going to remove all the bold tags around all country names if no objections are raised here. I am also planning to clean-up the article a little and remove red links and convert shorthand dates to longhand. Camaron1 | Chris 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of the above changes have since been made, I have gone and done the remainder and given the participants section a general cleanup. Camaron1 | Chris 14:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, it looks much better now. I was just wondering what everyone thinks of the "notes" section in the wikitables? I think that section is going to get far too cluttered for the article as more and more artists state their intentions. Not to mention, there seems to be a wide variation in what constitutes a notable national final contestant; a former Eurovision winner versus quite a few singers that don't have Wiki articles. I'm going to trim it down if there are no objections. Chwech 14:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should keep the table brief to avoid it been cluttered up with details, so I agree with a cut down. If necessary, more detailed information can be given in separate sections. Size of this article is currently not a problem, after a test I have discovered if it was doubled in length it would be only about 30kb in size - which is well within size limits. Camaron1 | Chris 15:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut it down as much as you want, I just wanted to put some notes, and couldn't think of anything else.. But everyone is welcome to edit it in a better way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs)

Non participating countries:

Do we give a reason for the countries who will not participate?I tried to create an article about all of them...I think if we write who participate and who doesnt participate we need to state why they dont participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with giving a reason for countries not participating, however this section is going to need a clean and a lot of the references have been lost. In particular I was very surprised to learn that Jordan and Egypt are the only countries that recognise the State of Israel, I am going to come back and clean it if nobody beats me to it. Camaron1 | Chris 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have cleaned it up and added some missing EBU members that will not participate, I have removed Liechtenstein as it is not a EBU member. Camaron1 | Chris 20:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that section should just be removed... It is not in any of the previous eurovision pages (unless its a withdrawing country) so why do you guys want to keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have rolled back the article to before mass content and reference removal. My reason is as follows: I don't see the problem with it, the information provided is encyclopedic and is mostly referenced. If the section is going to stay, cut down or not, it should be at the very least referenced. The previous articles are not yet classed as good or featured, so I do not agree that they should dictate the content of this article. As already said, size of this article is currently a long way from been a issue. Camaron1 | Chris 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Non-participating countries have, by definition, nothing to do with the event this article is about. It's reasonable to explain withdrawals since the previous ESC but explaining why a country that hasn't taken part in ages (or ever) still doesn't makes little sense here. Such information could be useful in the article Participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. 91.155.222.226 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is getting too long and the contest has not even started yet.. when you get the full participants' list with the scoreboards, broadcasters, pictures and everything, that section should be long gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlike WikiNews, Wikipedia content should have permanent notability - so in theory once appropriate (follows inclusion guidelines) content is added it should stay there permanently if appropriate (except with keeping it up-to-date). However, if its covered in another more relevant article, as it appears to be the case as suggested above, then it can go, as there is loss of information there. Though I suggest we keep the withdrawals section for Austria with the reasons. Even taking into account the length this article will gain by the time it is a past a event, length should not be a huge problem, and if it is splitting the article should be put before deletion per WP:NOT#PAPER. Since there seems to be consensus to remove this section, I will remove it now, restore it if you disagree. Camaron1 | Chris 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Austria

Why they gonna withdraw?The were the earliest country to announce that they will participate in Belgrade?Is ORF crazy?They skipped 2006 contest and now 2008,hopefully they will return in 2009 then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because they always do that, they have been doing that since the 1970s, and they'll continue doing it.. yes ORF is crazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT A DISASTER!!!!!

OMG.. I dont think i wanna edit this page anymore.. there is always somebody tryin to screw it over.. now a bunch of information was lost.. Im sorry but I had to delete all the individual entries.. that was just crazy.. If somebody can put back the notes in the participant's table.. it will be very appreciated.. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is: If you are deleting content from articles without explaining why in the edit summary (as you did here ), then other editors might see this as vandalism (removing content from articles is considered vandalism). Regards User Doe _☻T ^☼C 04:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well.. the page was becoming HUGE.. I didnt tell the sources.. I just put them in the 'notes' section.. It was like that last year.. why so many problems this year?

and lot of my information was deleted.. and nobody did anythin about it

• You can keep on working on the article (and maybe readd the info), but please write something in the edit summary if you are deleting content from articles. This will make it easier for other editors/RCPs (so they will not consider it as vandalism). Regards User Doe _☻T ^☼C 04:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few registered users and anon users to this article don't use edit summaries; I would appreciate it if this was not the case, as it can make it very difficult for me and others to see who made what changes. I have restored the individual entries template as it disappeared. Camaron1 | Chris 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

San Marino is not one of the Newest EBU members

The following sentence is not correct, "The newest EBU members, Azerbaijan and San Marino will debut at the 2008 contest." SMRTV has been an active member of the EBU since 1995, but is only participating for the first time in the Song Contest in 2008. I will change this sentence to be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewriter2120 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

MAP

We sure know that Slovakia and Morocco won't compete.. so the colour should be changed.. I also believe that u should continue using the shades of green.. The austrian map is outstanding from all the others.. and its just a withdrawing country.. but it looks like if it was the host country.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the map based on your comments. Also I'm sorry if you didn't like the separate individual entries section, but I really thought calling it a disaster was a bit harsh. Chwech 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Presenters

Does anyone know when the presenters of the ESC 2008 will be announced? Islenska2007x (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever gonna win this: www.rts.co.yu/euro/evropskolice.asp the runner up pair will present Beovizija 2008,while the winning pair will present Eurovision 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to put this into the info table but I messed up the page:

The winning pair of TV programme Evropsko lice }}

Elli Kokkinou?NO!

Hey,I just saw somebody added Elli Kokkinou to the rumored Greek entrants..Well,she officially said NO to ERT,so there's no reason for her to be there!By the way,my name is Jonn,I am new to Wikipedia,but I love writing articles and helping people to know stuff!I have been really busy with this Eurovision article,because I love Eurovision!!I hope I don't bother you guyz!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonngait (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

I made a mistake when I was trying to put the dates for Beovizija.. I deleted the "notes" accidentally.. If somebody can re-write them.. That'd be awesome.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Monaco status

Are they out?Or they confirmed participation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They're out, as they were in 2007. They're not listed as withdrawn because they haven't taken part since 2006. Chwech 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not too much details in notes

Please people: do NOT put too much details about the national preselection in the 'Notes' section, it is just for relevant artists or former participants that are taking part, you don't have to describe the whole selection process or to name all the finalists, thats what the Individual pages are for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also advisable to try and stick to sourced content as much as possible. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Format

I changed some things around to fit the same format as the 2007 (and rest) of the articles, and changed it to the same way we had things last year for the national final. You have a section of the participants with the country, song, artist, language, translation, and selection date (until all is over). Then you have another section for the details of each National Final. When the song and singer is picked, you take out that country. I also made a section for Individual entries. I also added international broadcasts in there before this change, as well as the commentators for each country. Please add more if you know them. Greekboy (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me; though it is worth trying to avoid recentism appearing in this article, by keeping information in a historical perspective and not removing details just because it is in the past - if that occurs then the information probably should not have been added in the first place. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the national finals, then one could argue that you could easily click on the individual entrie articles to find out more information about them like they are supposed to have in them. I kept the National Selections section because its something that was done last year. But if people agree that it should be taken out (sine selection dates are given, and you can click on individual entries for more information) then we should take it out. Greekboy (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the national selections section should be taken out and split into the individual articles about the countries entries for 2008. Nearly everything in there is/can be talked about in the individual articles - and most of it is not important enough to stay in this article permanently except through recentism. Also, a lot of these articles on the individual countries could do with a "boost" to encourage more content to be added, giving the country articles more of a purpose by splitting-up the national selections section in this article would do that. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Though each article will have a different format since their selection processes are different, which is ok. Check out this article Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007. I was thinking something maybe like this (info wise). It contains alot of info, references, and pictures. Greekboy (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats I would like the individual entry articles to be like. It can go into plenty of detail with the extra space. I have done some work to the individual entry articles today, including re-storing all the edit history lost due to previous deletions, which some editors might find helpful in looking at what previous versions of the articles looked like. Many of the articles still need a lot of expansion and references however. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So, there is no need to have the National Finals' section anymore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

About Commentator/Spokepersons

If eventually you are going to list ALL the commentators and spokepersons from the 43 participating countries.. Why you cannot keep the table? People, we should make this page as more organized as possible.. It cannot be too long.. Instead of having two separate sections for the huge list of commentators and another one for the spokepersons.. let's just combine them in a table.. I don't see any problem either, it was similar in the Junior 2007 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

After adding all 43 countries, it looks very messy, especially if there are multiple headings. (EX: Commentators, Spokespersons, Country, Broadcaster) It gets to be a little confusing too since you get to have different space size for each countries. (example the UK with a 4 line box) See Eurovision Song Contest 2007 on how it should look in my opinion. (Actually all passed Eurovision articles have them as a list) Its nice and neat, and its good to keep stuff consistent for the average wikipedia reader. All that aside, even if it was in a table, we dont need spokespersons yet as no country has announced that yet. I also dont think we really need the broadcaster. You could click on the countries name in the participants table to find that out. Greekboy (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so.. You don't actually need to know who the commentators or the spokepersons are... You can click on the countries and find out.. You can continue deleting it, I can do it again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont we want to go for consistency here? All the rest of the Eurovision articles have it in a different format. The list format is also more pleasing to the eye in my opinion. Especially with the flags in it. Its very easy to scroll down and read. It dosnt look like we are getting anywhere with this. So what do others think? Can we have a "third opinion"? Table format it all together, or list them separately in bullet form? And regarding clicking on the countries pages to find out the commentators or spokespersons, the "country in the eurovision song contest xxxx" page is mostly for information on the entry and selection process and outcome. And the commentator and spokespersons change every year usually, so "country in eurovision song contest" page dosnt help either. Greekboy (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision is to also standardize the articles with each other. Putting it in table form takes away from that goal and standardization. Greekboy (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that several of those standards has been introduced thanks to me... For ex.: I was the one to put the link of 'Country in the Eurovision Song Contest' in the participant's table? After I did that to the 2006 page.. The rest of the pages got the link... The many statistical ideas of the winners section (such as 'winners by language') were introduced by me... Before 2006, the eurovision pages only had like the name of the country, song and singer.. places would appear in the scoreboard.. and there were no maps (although I didn't introduce the maps).. That WikiProject:Eurovision started like a year ago.. And they standardize the page as the members put more or more organized features to them... I limited the size of the spanish/french articles.. and now people is editing in the way I put it... I'm not saying I am the only one who can throw new ideas to the pages, I'm just saying that Wikipedia adapts the new ideas of the members.. and keep them.. If the table for spokepersons is kept.. You'll see the 2007 page being changed, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikiproject:Eurovision started in 2003. And I actually helped make some of last years maps.... But thats besides the point. The point is that for the articles about the "Eurovision Song Contest xxxx" from at least 1990 are all listed in list version. Why not keep it that way here too? You say that table is more organized, but in reality its not for the points I have stated before. Because some countries have different commentators and such for the semi final and final, some of the boxes are bigger than others for the whole row, and start to look inconstant with the rest of the table. Take for example the UK. And if a country has a long line because the name of the commentator or spokesperson is long, then the whole column of the table becomes long like that, making it looks disorganized. After 43 countries are added, it just starts to look like a mess. If you leave it in table format, and add in all the commentators and spokespersons when they are announced, you will see exactly what I mean. The list way with bullets is easy to read and looks more pleasing to the eye in my opinion. Especially because of the flags. Its by alphabetical order, so everything is easy to find. Now even if a consensus was reached that the table format is desired, there is absolutely no need to put "spokespersons" in yet since none have been announced. Now we need more opinions about this matter to reach a consensus, since obviously we are disagreeing. Also, when you leave a comment on a talk page like this, add 4 of these symbols ~ at the end to sign your comment. Greekboy (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to support Greekboy. The present way, with the chart, looks kinda messy. With all 43 countries entered, it would look congested and probably take up half of the page. Some countries would have several lines to present all of their info while others would have only one. The way it was done in the past seems to look nicer and is somewhat easier to read. Charts can sometimes confuse people because of their layout. Also, the broadcasting station seems kinda pointless, since you could find that out just by going to the country's page for that year.Grk1011 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to support the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 version here. It is simpler and easier to read; also Commentators/Spokespersons is a awkward name and the WP:MOS generally discourages use of / to join words. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few more countries to the list and it looks good with a table. Leave it as a table and everybody is happy! Robotico2 —Preceding comment was added at 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have waited 3 days for responses/opinions. Seems like the old version/bullet version is supported more, so I will change it back to that version. Greekboy (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony0106 has reverted this change twice. I don't want to get into a WP:3RR problem over something as pointless as this, so I've left a message on his talk page. Chwech 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So you made a desicion with only 5 membres.. there are 2 backing the table and 3 backing the list.. Cheez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My message posted today, was posted before Robotico2 responded.....But ultimately it seems the consensus is to keep the old version with more specific arguments against the table version. The only argument to keep the table version is provided by you, saying it is more organized, while others say different and give examples. And I agree that we shouldn't get into a WP:3RR problem over something small like this, which is why I havnt reverted the table version these past couple of days. But User:Tony0106 seems unwilling to accept others views. Greekboy (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to remove countries from the table. There are massively empty tables above too. Robotico2 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

Ok,ok I have changed it into what it should be. Now it is just commentators. What do you think? --Robotico2 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

OK, for starters Wikipedia functions by consensus, not purely numbers, please review Wikipedia:Consensus for an illustration of my point here. Consensus is formed based on the strength of arguments made - although it is helpful to have a wider opinion there is no minimum requirement of people that need to be involved in a discussion for consensus to be formed, you can have a consensus from a discussion only involving two people in some circumstances.

Although I am perhaps a little biased because I support the list version, I am having difficulty finding any strong arguments against converting to the list version - in particular I would appreciate a bit more of a detailed reason from Robotico2 on why a list is inappropriate. In response to [1]; length and using more white space is not an issue per WP:NOT#PAPER, browsers have scroll bars which people can use. The only possible issue is size (amount of text code and pictures) causing page loading issues, but the current article could triple in size and still be within guidelines, so that is not an issue, also lists add about the same code text to the article as a table anyway. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the conversion from a table to a list by Robotico2, looks reasonable to me. Though I would prefer if there were not loads of NA's and instead content was added when it was available. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out the countries with NA. You did alot of work Robotico2, but as Camaron said, they should be added when there is info available. Same thing with the Spokespersons section. Greekboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea.. since you don't want any information until it's totally up-to-date. LET'S GET RID OFF THE COMMENTATORS/SPOKEPERSONS section.. And let's wait until the EBU gives us the official list of commentators and spokepersons.. I really find this discussion very ridiculous.. You guys are just like the mainstream esc-fans, You dont like changes.. There's people arguing that the page will get bigger with the tables of the semifinalists.. Guys, IT WOULD BE THE SAME LENGHT... The current table splitted in half, and it might get just a bit bigger when we add the finalists.. But one or two lists of UNNESSERARY details such as commentators and spokepersons will surely make the page TWICE BIGGER.. Almost all wikipedia pages are now using tables.. Take a look at the 65th Golden Globe Awards or Miss World 2007 pages (compared them with the previous years). They went from lists (that included much more information than the Eurovision page could ever get) to tables.. For me, the list is disastrous because you're not adding only 5 or 10 countries.. You're adding 43 COUNTRIES.. If you want to find out who gave the points and who was the commentator from Cyprus you can easily check it by sorting out the table instead of scrolling down and up and down.. The discussion was even with 2 supporting the list and 2 supporting the table.. Now you convinced another one, to get rid off the table.

Firstly, the decision was made with 3 supports of a list and 1 of a table. If you read the timestamps and signatures, the other user posted his comment AFTER a consensus was reached. Second, no one convinced anyone. We had a discussion on the 2 formats and the advantages and disadvantages. Now it looks like you are very unhappy with this, and make assumptions calling us such names as mainstream esc-fans, don't like change, which in my view is not conducting good Civility. I don't really know what you are talking about the size of the article for, because I have seen no one other than you and a response from [User:Camaron]] mention the size of the article. You also give examples of other pages with tables, but none of those pages have the same type of information, and the same exact case, as the ESC pages. Please also have a look at Wikipedia:When to use tables on why sometimes long lists (especially simple ones like these) are better left as lists rather than tables. On a last note, this whole discussion has gotten way overblown than it should have been for such a small thing. Greekboy (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am little confused over your stance towards article size; your earlier comments suggest that you thought article size and length is a issue, but now you seem to think it is not - my comment above was a response to the former. Whatever the case, I would appreciate it if you do not delete the Commentators section (again) without forming a consensus to do so here, as it is under dispute and hence controversial. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was always concerned about the article size, I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.. I wanna delete the commentators section because they is not enough participation and not even links to verify that information is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony0106, please do not remove the commentators section without further discussion. It is going against other users wishes. DO NOT REMOVE COMMENTATORS. Thank you. --Robotico2 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

Languages

Do not write down the languages if you still don't know in what language the representative of that country will sing.. Not because Spain always sends songs in Spanish, means it will do the same this year (even if chances are likely to), you never know if they're going to send a song half Spanish half English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is very likely that United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta will sing in English. Other than that, only confirmed laanguages should be used. I mean, not all countries use the same language all the time. --Robotico2 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

It is very likely, yeah.. But how do u know? They will not send entries in Irish or Maltese, or I dont know in Spanish or Italian which are the new sensation.. I bet you that in 2001, nobody expected France to send a song partially in English.. Latvia sent a song in Italian where you expecting that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Have the UK ever sent a song in a language other than English? No, so I don't see the reason in removing English from the UK table section. Also, Ireland has only sung in Irish once. --Robotico2 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

I would rather they are left blank to the song is revealed. It is very likely that the UK song will be in English - but it is still speculating, and hence arguably original research. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 states that the Azeri song will be translated in English for the semi-finals. Shall I put this in the main article under language or shall I leave it blank? --Robotico2 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

Delete Commentators section

There is not enough information to be added and not links to verify such information about this year's commentators of the Eurovision Song Contest, therefore I believe it should be deleted...

I don't want to get into an editwar but why don't we just leave the Commentators section on the article. It will eventually be filled and is not a massive part of the article so isn't going to affect it hugely, so don't delete. There is no point making so much fuss over a small section and it is best if it is left alone. --Robotico2 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Robotico2

I think the commentators section should be left in the article and filled in as more information is revealed, followed by the spokespersons section later on. Greekboy (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's probably a place for this information but it must be cited. The whole article has been tagged as not providing verifiable reliable sources. Please add some citations to support this information. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching for sources earlier and came up with nothing (not sure about Greece though, there may be Greek-language refs out there) so I'm moving towards removing the section for now and re-adding it when sources are available. That will probably only be a few weeks, anyway. Chwech 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't disagree with that at all. We shouldn't have non-verifiable information in the article, particularly since it seems such a bone of contention either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Added reference for Greece. Article lists Maggira sisters as hosts of the NF, which also means they will be this years commentators. Thats how ERT does it for the past 10 years+ at least, never really announcing them as commentators but as hosts. Maggira sisters were also on the morning show "Omorfos Kosmos to Proi" on Mega Channel Greece where they said they will be hosting and commentating. (as well as help write the NF) As for the UK, don't know if there is a source for the 2008 edition yet, but Terry Wogan is at least a given. Greekboy (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would generally support removing uncited content, though lack of references is an article wide issue with anon and newly registered users frequently adding content that is not sourced - and it has been difficult to keep up. It can be argued that all unsorced content should be removed, but that would mean the deletion of a lot of content at this time, which is why I added the refimprove tag. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the section should be kept, with more information being added as sources come out. This way people will actually be on the lookout for references.Greekboy (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with section stubs - encouraging article expansion is nearly always a good thing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as long as its cited its fine. The section's only going to get bigger as the months go on. Chwech 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)