Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Separation of "(Potential) participating countries" and "Shows" sections

Hi everyone. This may not be relevant quite yet, but as we get closer to the event, @Dimsar01: and I were discussing that there would be merit from ESC 2020 onwards in separating the list of participating countries - where each participating country should be listed exactly once, with whatever amount of detail about each country/delegation as we see fit - from details of the shows, where only the names of the relevant countries would appear, along with details specifically relating to the shows like show times, presenters, interval acts, and so on.

The rationale for doing this is to make the page easier to navigate, especially for inexperienced consumers of the ESC pages on the English-language Wikipedia, and also in particular on mobile devices. We think it will make it much more obvious where information on the shows can be found, and avoid us having to increasingly 'overload' the participating countries section as more show-related info is added.

TL;DR We propose separate "Participating countries" and "Shows" sections.

What does everyone think? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind the idea, but I'd need to see more of the implementation and how it'd work for me to fully back it. I think a separate "Participants" section could be beneficial as that table could include songwriters, who currently go unnoticed on the main articles (even though this is a SONG contest). However, if this means removing the artists and song titles from the "Shows" section's tables, then I do not think I could support that. That would be much too confusing, and a table with just Running draw, Country, Points, and Placement seems a bit empty to me. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I really like the idea but just like @Jjj1238: said, it would look very empty to have a table with just the running order, the country, their points and their placements. Personally, I think that we should have two sections but I don't know how it would/could work. Thalaja (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you want it but I agree with @Jjj1238: and @Thalaja: mean as well that it might look empty with only the running order, Country, The place and the points,It would just look a little empty but Maybe we can add the song and the artist in both section maybe. This is just a suggestion. Sammyham84 (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If we include the artist and songs in both tables (thus the "Shows" section's tables would remain largely identical to what they are now except for a lack of the language section) and then use the "Participants" section's table to include country, artist, song, language, and songwriters I will support that initiative. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have created a mock-up to gauge what the tables would look like.

Participants

Country	Artist	Song	Language(s)	Songwriter(s)
Albania	Jonida Maliqi	"Ktheju tokës"	Albanian	Eriona Rushiti
Armenia	Srbuk	"Walking Out"	English	Lost Capital tokionine Garik Papoyan
Australia	Kate Miller-Heidke	"Zero Gravity"	English	Kate Miller-Heidke Keir Nuttall
Austria	Paenda	"Limits"	English	Paenda
Azerbaijan	Chingiz	"Truth"	English	Borislav Milanov Trey Campbell Bo J Pablo Dinero Hostess Chingiz Mustafayev

Shows (with artists & songs)

Draw	Country	Artist	Song	Place	Points
1	Albania	Jonida Maliqi	"Ktheju tokës"	4	10
2	Australia	Kate Miller-Heidke	"Zero Gravity"	5	5
3	Azerbaijan	Chingiz	"Truth"	1	25
4	Armenia	Srbuk	"Walking Out"	2	20
5	Austria	Paenda	"Limits"	3	15

Shows (without artists & songs)

Draw	Country	Place	Points
1	Albania	4	10
2	Australia	5	5
3	Azerbaijan	1	25
4	Armenia	2	20
5	Austria	3	15

Looking at the mock-ups, I do think it is beneficial to include both artist and song. After all, this is a song competition where each country only has one single representative. It would be a bit confusing for the reader to not have anything to go off of but the country names. I might be a little more okay with including the song titles but not the artists if we absolutely cannot include both.

A proposal I have though would be to include a note in the hypothetical "Participants" table explaining artists who are not nationals of the country they are representing. This has always been something I was interested in pursuing, as I found it odd someone would represent a country they do not live in or have any connection to in an international competition. You do not see people without any sort of connection to the country they are representing in the Olympics.

It would look like this:

Country	Artist	Song	Language(s)	Songwriter(s)
Estonia	Victor Crone	"Storm"	English	Stig Rästa Vallo Kikas Victor Crone Fred Krieger
San Marino	Serhat	"Say Na Na Na"	English	Serhat Mary Susan Applegate

Thoughts from everyone else? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

After seeing the mock-ups, I think i've made my decision. I don't think we should add this for now, it seems kind of useless to have two sections that are comprised of almost the exact same information. The Eurovision Song Contest 2019 page on the spanish Wikipedia uses a similar two sections system if anyone wants to check that out and see if they like it. Thalaja (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• The shows table w/o artists is just the expandable secondary table in the Scoreboard section, plus the running order, so I'd argue that it would be superfluous to have three tables of the same kind with practically the same values in one article. For Songwriters, generally I think it is a good idea, but in many cases they are not usually found in reliable sources, as their presence takes the backseat (in opposition to 1957, where they took the winning medal from Corry Brokken to give it to the composer, who happened to also attend the show on the night), and many songwriters easily bloat the table. Lordtobi (✉) 08:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In all honesty, I am not against creating a table that is similar to the Spanish article's. I think it appears distinct enough to not look like repetition, and can clear up the hypothetical Shows table by removing the language section. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that we could do the table with the participants table with all the countries, song title, artist, language and the song writer and also the one show with the draw country the artist and the song, the placing and the points Sammyham84 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference column

Why is there a Reference column in the table we never had one in any of the other Eurovision so why would it be different this year? Sammyham84 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not a good practice to slap sources into any random column, especially when we have to confirm each contry individually. At some point, a lump source that confirms all entries will be available, making the ref column redundant. Such a good practice having not been established in past articles is rather WP:OSE, and I hadn't been involved with those either. Lordtobi (✉) 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok I completely understand thank you Sammyham84 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar01, your statement contradcits the reason the column was created in the first place. As long as we have to piece together participation confirmations source-by-source, the overiview over all the sources becomes much clearer with a secluded column. Once we have one source that confirms all entrants, the column would be binned automatically, but as long as that is, it is best practice to have them separate, not appended to the country names. Lordtobi (✉) 11:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar01, it doesn't look better, no. We are semantically sourcing the name, which is not the case. Ref columns provide overview that the entire row is sourced. In most cases (as is currently here for all cases) one source confirms all row details. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar01, the one ref is for the entire row. That's literally the point of the column. Lordtobi (✉) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request on 9 June 2019

Slovakian broadcaster

I believe it is RTVS instead of RTSV. User:Hhl95 19:27, 7 June 2019

@Hhl95: I've updated this request so that an admin can properly fix it. Please change "Slovak broadcaster Radio and Television of Slovakia (RTSV)" to "Slovak broadcaster Radio and Television of Slovakia (RTVS)" as this is the correct abbreviation for this broadcaster. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The page is not protected. Ruslik_Zero 20:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request for Georgian confirmation

https://eurovoix.com/2019/06/09/georgia-eurovision-2020-participation-confirmed/

 Done Sammyham84 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Date of last update

The date that the article was last updated is not today's date. Therefore, the date should be static, not dynamic. Banana Republic (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The {{date}} parameter doesn't update every day. It only refreshes when the article is edited. LexPro4 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but if the update of the article had nothing to do with the sentence in question, then it would still be wrong to have the date updated as the sentence in question would still only be accurate as of the last time it was updated (assuming, of course, it was updated correctly). Banana Republic (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but my view is that just by saying "as of (whenever)", we are already assuming that we have every confirmed country in the article, no matter if we use a static or dynamic date. So that assumption carries over to any update of the article.
If you don't want to have the template, I won't stop you from removing it, we don't desperately need to have it. I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
LexPro4 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not an issue that is worth edit warring over, because once the list is finalized, there will no longer be a need for the phrasing "As of date ....", the list will have been finalized. But until the list is finalized, the phrase "As of date ....." should reflect the last date that the list was updated, not the last date that the article was updated. Banana Republic (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean and I understand. I will not change it from you again I also don’t want another Edit war on this page -Sammyham84 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

CRYSTALBALL

Dimsar01, please stop edit warring over crystal-balling. Yes, it is confirmed that AVROTROS is supposed to host the contest. Yes, it is confirmed that the broadcaster plans to host it in its own country. But no, we cannot be 100% certain that the event will actually take place in the country until the country has actually done so or its occasion is invetiable. Look back at the Eurovision Song Contest 1980. Israel won the contest and the IBA was given the opportunity to host the contest. Had Wikipedia existed back then, the article would have insisted "it will be the 3rd time Israel will host the contest". But then, the IBA decided not to host it at all. While this exact event is unlikely to occur for 2020, the same principle applies. Lordtobi (✉) 13:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You are sourcing the word "will" in the sentence "Ukraine will return". How does this connect to the Netherlands hosting the event? Lordtobi (✉) 13:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if you don't get the point of conditional speech you should consider not changing it over and over. Even if the event was cancelled, there have been enough news surrounding it that the article would document what was set to happen. This is also what the article should do right now, say what is supposed to happen, not what will definetly happen. Lordtobi (✉) 14:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi:, you shouldn't be blaming @Dimsar01: for edit warring when you're doing it as well. I, an editor who just started editing a few months ago, don't understand why you both are acting like this. Sure, Dimsar01 didn't do the correct thing but neither did you. Instead of edit warring, go to each other's talk pages and sort things out so that the rest of us can keep editing this page. I know this probably sounded really harsh but I just want to get my point across. Thalaja (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The only thing you two have accomplished is getting the article Protected for a month. And you both getting warnings for 3RR violations. Now calm down and stay off this page for some time.BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thalaja, you are right that I could and should know better given my many years on the platform, but I cannot help myself because I am naturally hot-headed, and I cannot stand keeping vandalism or misinformation intact just because the user, who should discuss their changes (WP:BRD), insists, by edit warring, that their version should stay. It's not my first time and probably won't be the last.

@BabbaQ, you, too are right, though note that it was me who requested the protection. When I such a situation arises, I usually do this to keep all involved parties, but primarily myself, from edit warring further, and a full protection gives us enough time outline an article style that we all (or most of us) can agree on. I did not expect the protection to be one month, but here we are with plenty of disucssion time on our hands. Lordtobi (✉) 16:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Lordtobi - FYI, when assessing the length of protection time, admins take into consideration any previous protection duration for the same issues. The length of the protection often increases if the same issue keeps cropping up. If it's a first-time protection, it's usually a matter of hours or days. Not sure if non-admins can see this, but probably: On a given article: Page/page logs/protection log. This is the 5th protection for this article in 2019. The last protection time length was 2 weeks, so I made this one a full month. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok I'm not sure why a lot of this has become an issue however discussions like this is starting to become a common occurrence. To everyone instead of edit warring if you disagree with something bring it to the talk page. Now back to the topic at hand that lead to full protection.

1. This edit should not have lead to a dispute a simple click of the sources would have validated the dates in the Artist/Song columns are correct and verified. Since the source beside the names Czech Republic and Denmark had these dates we didn't have to apply the same sources beside the dates but there is nothing against this either. It is purely a cosmetic issue to avoid clutter. The issue should have been considered resolved after this edit.
2. The solution proposed by Lordtobi to use a ref column is not a bad idea and in fact more articles in general are adopting this to verify tables when needed instead of cluttering up tables with inline citations. Again this is a cosmetic way of handing sources and to keep the table from appearing to be cluttered. However it does resolve a potential accessibility issue when it comes to WP:COLOR as the hyperlinks to the sources against the colored background fail Wikipedia's color accessibility guidelines as the color combination should pass WCAG 2.1 (see this image I created where the cells fail the AAA test.)
3. Not sure why using "would/will" started an edit war either honestly. There is nothing indicating that AVROTROS will hold the contest in a neighboring country, the Eurovision Song Contest will be canceled or the European Broadcasting Union will go defunct anytime soon. If any of those three things happen they can be address at that time however the sources clearly state that bidding to host is open for cities/regions the Netherlands and the article should reflect the sources. So using will about the Netherlands hosting is acceptable at this point and time and doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. The same thing can't be said for Ukraine or any of the other 18 countries that have expressed interest in taking part in 2020. At this stage all indications of participation are provisional and not final so the use of "will" here would fail WP:CRYSTAL.

So the TL;DR version of this post is as editors we should seriously consider the ref column idea Lordtobi came up with and reach a consensus for its use on Eurovision-style articles. Also the lead should be clear cut as per my reasoning above. I think once we can get this sorted we can ask the protecting admin to remove all protection or at least place the article under pending changes protection to prevent general vandalism/unsourced information being added to the article. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Alucard 16, you get when I'm on about, so I agree to your proposed changes. I will argue, though, that the line saying that NL will hold the contest for the Nth time should be temporally in line with the preceding sentence, "The contest is set to take place ...", as a mixture of tenses makes little sense and might confuse the reader. Lordtobi (✉) 10:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I agree with you here we shouldn't mix tenses in the lead. I think the lead should stay the way it is for now. I do think we should implement the ref column to fix the accessibility/color issue plus the table would look cleaner . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dimsar01: Any thoughts on what could be done to remedy the situation or about what I mentioned above? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot believe we have this article protected for a whole month over the "would" vs. "will". Of course the "would" is preferable to the "will", since would is a conditional future tense, whereas will is a definite future tense, and we do not know if indeed things will go as expected. Banana Republic (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, Dimsar01 now claims that the edit war has been resolved. Banana Republic (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the two editing and styling issues at hand are mainly cosmetic and will contribute my thoughts. First, it’s much more important for me as well, to address the issue of general communication; for a fun editing flow, with a cooperative manner. And I hope that you, Tobi, can take that as a reaching-out attempt feedback, both for my personal desire to work alongside you in the future, and for general communication thoughts.

Lordtobi, this circumstances which you addressed about others miscommunication, actually merits on Dimsar maintaining a consensual formatting, for the tables for the least. This is the practice done for ages, and Dimsar is well versed with the accepted practices here (one of the most veteran editors in this area). That he also personally disagreed with you is therefore irrelevant, he protected a stable version. As for the “will” wording, I recall this is also what was usually used previously, for future Eurovision events. Otherwise, I don’t recall we previously determined consensus for either wording. Yep there are two sides, but eventually, the burden of BRD and talk page, was mostly leaning on you in this circumstance. It’s also deeply concerning your statement that you are hot-headed, that in the future you probably won’t control yourself again, and ask for article protection. This can only diminish desire or patience of all non-admin users to ask on the talk to update/add something; as well as readers have more await to read new contributions.

I also share, from a previous experience with you, Tobi, over the 1956 ESC article, where you removed an entire section, and with unclear edit summaries. I reverted you once, you reverted again. Already then I simply came to your talk, so I for example didn’t edit-war with you; I explained you about the formatting consensus here (even if for small introduction). I also asked you about your edit summaries of “Broken English”? “Venue details are irrelevant”, later swapped on your talk page to unclear/ contradicting “Venue details are relevant, but not city surroundings”. You vaguely explained your thoughts, mainly in regards to the city, which I also wrote I agree and already shortened myself, again repeating following consensus and actions taken. You responded that “as you stated already”, that I need to discuss this issue to change it, oblivious to my explanations.

You did, however, asked me What do I think? about your thoughts, afterwards: which was pleasant for me and made me want to keep cooperate with you. So I then further tried and enjoyed writing to advice with you, and share info I had about the venue or how to find it, to appreciate your feedback. But then, you completely ignored me. That put me not only in a situation that I felt a bit hurt, but also that I felt stress to still insert back some stuff as I was afraid of getting further upset that you then again revert me after not-responding. So that was unfortunate and deterring. I sincerely hope you can understand that, connect to the current case – as a feedback out of my own desire to improve communication with you and the general communication for fun-work.

Dimsar01 – as above, I hope that from now, in worst case, you limit your revert to about two times, even if it’s a stable version (unless its pure vandalism of course). Also of course try to avoid when you got heated and completely removed countries from the "provisional list" and take take a deep breath instead, and come to the talk page. I personally love and usually agree with your views, and I would love to keep contributing my views with you as well here, for my best understanding and ability. Dimsar, I also disagree that the edit-war was resolved, as you now reported on "Banana Republic". Sorry, but I don't see this as you.

Alucard 16, you now raise a point I may agree with, about colors and accessibility presentation. Up to now, I solely agreed with Dimsar about specific cells, and already existing countries column for generic sourcing. I will look into your color point and reply above (under “Reference column” discussion). As for “Would”, I tend to agree with Toby, though I still couldn’t follow and understand some instances when you, Tobi, removed countries from “provisional list” while claiming in some discussions above here that for some countries it’s okay to assume “provisional”. The “Active EBU Members” is for all countries – until there is a direct confirmation for Eurovision. I’m raising this issue as well, in light that I therefore find it further unclear about the insistence on “would”, from the approach that nothing, not even Netherlands hosting, is certain. Anyway, that other countries-issues aside for now, I support using “Would” wherever applicable for conditional-future. אומנות (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone who almost did the exact same thing that Dimsar01 did, here are my thoughts. A short disclaimer, I don’t mean to be offensive in any way but this whole situation has gotten way out of hand.

One of the things I don’t understand is why they’re both behaving like this. Combined, they have around 65,000 edits making them both pretty experienced editors and that’s what confuses me the most, they’re experienced editors but they’re (no offence) acting like children. They should’ve went to each others talk pages, sorted things out and came to a conclusion but instead they didn’t talk it out and now them (and the rest of us) aren’t allowed to edit this page for a month.

A little while ago, I almost did the exact same thing as Dimsar. I thought that it was pretty much confirmed that the contest would take place in the Netherlands so I changed “would” to “will”. Lordtobi reverted my edits which was kind of confusing to me at the time because I didn’t fully understand conditional speech. A couple months later and a few days before this edit war started, I changed “would” to “will” once again which Lordtobi once again reverted. By this time I had gotten a bit better at understanding conditional speech so when he/she reverted my edits I understood why.

I think that we should all rise like phoenix’s, out of the ashes and learn from this experience. I hope I didn’t offend anyone but those were my thoughts. I hope everyone’s learned something from this because I sure have, have a great day. Sincerely, Thalaja (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right Thalaja, I also made my biggest effort here to explain as gently and detailed as possible, how its always best to communicate on the available venues, and so I highly understand the teyour tense feel from expressing yourself and highly appreciate your feedback to the situation. Its reassuring me personally to see more and more people trying to breach the gap here. :-) אומנות (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• I duly appreciate everyone's comments here, both supportive and critical. However, I feel like this is branching out into edit style commentary a bit too far. Thus, I would like to come back to the root problems, so we can reach consensus for both:
  • Regarding the Nehterlands hosting the contest, should we use [A] definitive future tense ("will be hosted in the Netherlands" ... "will be the Nth time the Netherlands") or [B] conditional future tense ("set to be hosted in the Netherlands" ... "would be the Nth time"), on the condition that the contest is not 100% guaranteed to take place.
  • Regarding the table of bidding cities, should we use [A] a reference-per-cell solution or [B] a reference-per-row (with row column) solution, to better address accessibility and avoid ref duplication.
• Lordtobi (✉) 21:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Lordtobi I agree 100% here with what you are saying and we should get back to the topic at hand. In regards to the Netherlands hosting I'm for using definitive future tense (option A). In regards to the tables I'm for option B using a reference-per-row solution as this will be the best option for accessibility. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Current situation regarding candidate cities

Broadcasters NOS and NPO have revealed in official articles which nine cities have applied to host the contest: https://over.npo.nl/voor-publiek/eurovisie-songfestival-2020/nieuws/eurovisie-songfestival-2020-steden-kunnen-tot-10-juli-bid-books-inleveren#content and https://nos.nl/artikel/2288750-kandidaat-gaststeden-songfestival-aan-de-slag-met-bidbook.html. This is already covered by the Spiteri article in source number 9. However, some information/thoughts are missing there.

The NPO article mentions that Leeuwarden and Maastricht are teaming up with the provinces of Friesland and Limburg respectively. On the contrary, it does not mention a possible team-up of the province of North Brabant with the cities of Breda and 's-Hertogenbosch, nor does it mention those cities as a joint bid. The cities are mentioned separately. I think, and it has always been my understanding, that North Brabant never said it would team up in a bid. My understanding has always been, that once a city in North Brabant happens to be chosen as host city, North Brabant will support that city. If my understanding is right, this means that Breda and 's-Hertogenbosch will send separate bids including the support that the province will potentially give them.

Likewise, the NPO article does not mention a joint bid of Arnhem and Nijmegen. Arnhem is the only city mentioned here. And similar to my understanding of North Brabant, I think Nijmegen will support Arnhem if it is chosen as the host city, but it is not equally involved in the bidding process, although Arnhem will for sure consult Nijmegen over the support Nijmegen could give them.

I am not able to edit the page, so it is up to you whether or not you'd like to change information in the table. But these are the latest and the most official sources on this topic, so I would prefer them to the Spiteri article and I would prefer its information to that of older, non-official articles. Also, you're of course welcome to discuss my understanding of the involvement of North Brabant and Nijmegen.

Additionally, the NPO article states that cities, other than the nine, will still have the opportunity to send their bid books. So even though we now have an official list of which cities are bidding, this list only presents the current situation and might not be exhaustive as other cities are still allowed to join the list. So you could still choose to either stick to this list, or to add 'interested' cities/venues such as Enschede (which I see is removed) as well, since they can still bid.

And when it comes to the use of sources: we sourced Spiteri, but Spiteri uses a source too, namely this one: https://eurovision.tv/story/eurovision-2020-host-city-to-be-announced-in-august?fbclid=IwAR3obsqBWa-wT0-PGkw3hqqY67qxBsJmcVmGNDwn4_PAy7yXC-vXHvJNGVs. I think we should stick to a habit of using the most official and most first sources as possible. Citing Spiteri is like citing Google for an article or image you found there. So disregarding all the stuff above, I think at least that the Spiteri source has to be replaced by the Eurovision source that he used. And possibly other sources should be replaced by their respective official sources as well. Hhl95 03:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hhl95, there are several more secondary sources available for this. I'm currently too short on time to check them all, but if you wish, you can toll through them to check if it includes what you need:

• Dee, Daphne (13 June 2019). "Eurovision 2020: Breda and Den Haag among nine cities that have received host city bidding books". Wiwibloggs.
• Herbert, Emily (13 June 2019). "Eurovision 2020: Host City to Be Revealed in August". Eurovoix.
• Sigona, Joey (12 June 2019). "Eurovision 2020: Host city to be announced in August". ESCplus.
• Jumawan, Tim (12 June 2019). "Eurovision Song Contest 2020 Host City to be revealed in August!". ESCXtra.
• Jiandani, Sanjay (12 June 2019). "Eurovision 2020: Host City announcement in August". ESCToday.
• Van Ee, Dennis (12 June 2019). "Eurovision 2020 in The Netherlands: Host city announced in August". ESCDaily.

Lordtobi (✉) 18:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My point is that I think we should use primary sources instead of secondary. So use sources from the EBU, Eurovision.tv, NPO, NOS, AVROTROS and sources from the cities/venues/participating broadcasters where possible. Secondary sources are secondary for a reason. And many secondary sources do not say which was their primary source. So the reliability gets lost there. Therefore we should stick to primary sources as much as possible. Hhl95 22:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The general point of secondary sources is to have an independent voice report reliably on a topic. The sites I linked are generally (maybe excluding ESCDaily) considered reliable. Using such is pfeferred over primary sources, as long as no information is lost. If any of these covers the information required, we can/should use them instead of, or in addition to, a primary source. Lordtobi (✉) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That point would make sense in the case of subjective stuff. But it does not in the case of pure truth and information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it aims to present facts and truth. It is purely informative. And for that, you need the most current and most official information. So we should cite primary sources, because our interest is just the information. There is no way in which the EBU, NOS, NPO, AVROTROS or whoever could be biased in providing pure information regarding their very own event. Information on which cities are bidding, which countries are participating, how the bidding process works etc. is just absolute information with no room for bias and interpretation. So there is no need for an 'independent' source, because this is the most clean, clear and independent you can get. Every step away from the primary source is an invitation to more subjectivity and less reliability. Independent sources are only necessary in the case of statements that leave room for interpretation, such as which cities are interested in hosting (before we had the current information provided by NPO, NOS and Eurovision.tv). There we had to interpret their interest and the general information regarding their hosting. In these cases, secondary sources provide for more reliability. Now that we have absolute information on which cities are actually bidding, there is no room and no need for interpretation. So we have to use the primary source there, because in this case, secondary sources provide for less reliability. Hhl95 01:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, since the primary source is the only entity that can actually know with confidence with this type of information. Grk1011 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Image transparency not working properly in Firefox

For Firefox users, the image of the ESC 2020 logo with the Dutch flag doesn't look like it should. It has a black, opaque background rather than an transparent one. It seems to work fine in all other browsers. I'm not sure how to fix this, so I'm just throwing this out there.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who to thank, but it's been fixed. Well done! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops forgot to reply, but you're welcome. -- AxG / ✉  20:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Latvia

ESCXtra considers LTV's statement to Eurofestivales as a confirmation that they plan to participate in ESC 2020, since the statement comes directly from the broadcaster / a representative thereof. Should we do so, too? Lordtobi (✉) 13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I support moving Latvia to the participation list. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Israel

For what reason is Israel being removed from the list of participating countries when we have reliable sources claiming so? [1] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The source added (published yesterday) appears to indicate that the participation has been de-confirmed, or that there was a misunderstanding before. Lordtobi (✉) 09:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Spaces in references

@Lordtobi: Why exactly did you add the spaces back when I removed them? They're completely unnecessary. And believe me it took time to remove them. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 14:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We should use a format that is easily readable by most editors, for many people this is not the case with this crammed format. Frankly, I also did not see a reason to change it. However, I'm not adamant about any format so if you really think that the crammed format is necessary, you could change it using my script, for easier changing and a lot of saved time. Lordtobi (✉) 15:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Catalonia and Kosovo

We had decided last year not to include Catalonia and Kosovo since their participation is largely speculative and involves a series of "hoops" to even get to the point where it would be possible to participate. Sources exist that document that speculation, but does that type of information belong in an encyclopedia? The way I read #5 of WP:FUTURE, I'm not so sure. See Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019/Archive_1#Inclusion_of_Catalonia for the previous discussion (with Kosovo being a similar case). While there are new articles this year, they largely say the same as they did last year. Do we want to change that previous consensus? Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Grk1011, it doesn't look to me like the previous discussion had any kind of consensus, just a quick exchange of arguments over the support on the inclusion of Catalonia. In fact, the discussion ended with the supporter still opting for inclusion of Catalonia. As there are new sources that specifically reflect on the possibility that country X could potentially take part in 2020, we should include that bit of information, as it is relevant. New sources wouldn't come out of the blue, there is usually some form of new development associated with it, as is the case with both countries here. For the 2019 contest specifically, it states that Kosovo could take part in 2020, which is not relevant there, actually, just here. Thus, it should be removed there and stay here. Lordtobi (✉) 14:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We did not add Catalonia because we did not find anything about it for 2019 but Kosovo is included I see no reason not to include them Sammyham84 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Unlike the cases of Kosovo, Wales and some others, there's no recognition of Catalonia as any form of "country" beyond that of an "autonomous community," thus, this territory does not belong in any sort of list of countries as such; re-naming the section as "Other countries or territories" might be appropriate as long as the autonomous region is present. Besides that, its inclusion may be a form of "playing dumb" as it is clear that the participation of Catalonia is a practical impossibility awaiting rejection first from the EBU and second from a large number of Catalans who will oppose a polemic, politically-biased channel like TV3 to enter the contest claiming to represent the community in its entirety, without any need of a veto from either France or Spain. 139.47.64.198 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This issue has not been resolved and the there have been several edits today of users just going from one format to another and not providing any explanation why. This is going to turn into another edit war if this isn't addressed. Personally, I think if there is any section called "Other territories", then we might as well put every country in it, essentially renaming the "Other countries" section to "Other territories". LexPro4 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a country, is part of Spain, the other territories are, so Catalonia should not be in the same category as the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiwjj (talk • contribs) 12:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to § Other countries and territories for further discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Other countries and territories

In stead of having a completely different section for just Catalonia could we just rename the whole section Other countries and territories Sammyham84 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Other countries and territories" is one option, also possible are "Other entities" or "Other broadcasters". IMO, "Other broadcasters" is the best option for this. Please await further comments to get consensus on which option to use. Lordtobi (✉) 12:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, as it's the broadcasters that participate, not the actual countries. LexPro4 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

To all involved edtitors, @Grk1011, 139.47.64.198, Javiwjj, Hhl95, Jjj1238, Adrianchue, NiciVampireHeart, 79.159.226.207, and BabbaQ, please discuss here instead of edit warring in the article. Lordtobi (✉) 15:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a country, it is an autonomous community, part of Spain, therefore, I think that it should be removed from the countries section. Instead, it'll be beneficial for all to create a new section called "new territories", where to put this type of cases. In this way, things are treated as what they are, and nobody is bothered. Politics should stay away from this contest. Javiwjj (✉) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We are aiming to have all entrant candidates under the same section so to avoid that Catalonia and Kosovo are alone in their sections, especially since Catalonia would occupy a top-level section. "Other broadcasters" would include all of them. Lordtobi (✉) 15:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because Eurovision is not a political event, that doesn't mean we can't include any political information in an encyclopaedia with no affiliation to the contest, provided that the information is relevant. I also don't think an "Other territories" section separate from the "Other countries" section is a good solution, because every country is a "territory" so we may as well just rename "Other countries" to "Other territories" if that section has to exist. Personally, I'm in favour of renaming "Other countries" to "Other broadcasters" for reasons I've already stated. LexPro4 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s a pity, but some people still don’t know the difference between country and sovereign state. According to Wikipedia, "a country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics". So, Catalonia (and Valencia, Andalusia, Castile, Basque Country, Aragon, Galicia, etc.) is a country which is part of a larger state (Spain). I think it’s not hard to understand, but maybe there is a political background here and ideologies should not have a place in Wikipedia. For these reasons, if we can’t keep the current name, I'm in favour of renaming "Other countries" to "Other broadcasters". After all, the broadcasters are who take part in the Eurovision Song Contest through the songs and the artists who perform them. Adrianchue (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Adrianchue your links to 'country' and 'sovereign state' just confirm the knowledge I have on this and I see no reason to change my views. I also see no way how Catalonia is regarded a country within Spain. It is not mentioned on that page and it does not fit the definition. In the way you are arguing now, you would say that Berlin is a country within Germany, North Holland is a country within the Netherlands and Florida is a country within the United States. That's not how it works. It's not like all sub-national entities are countries. The 'country' page lists three states where countries are part of a larger state, namely the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. There are no others. So Catalonia is not a country by Wikipedia standards, nor by the legal/scientifical standards that it is based on.

I see that the discussion is now leaning towards 'other broadcasters'. As it was my idea, I do support this for the reasons I gave before. However, I also warned that this requires a lot of changes on all Eurovision pages. So for that reason I would be more in favour of going by the legal definitions as I have explained before. Another problem with broadcasters is: which flag are you going to add? Thinking about this, I came up with one possible way to work around this. We could refer to countries, including their flags, in the participation section, and we could refer to broadcasters, without flags, in the 'Other broadcasters' section. However, this does pose a further problem once Catalonia would actually participate, since we wouldn't be able to refer to it as a country in the participation section. To avoid this, I think we should also bear in mind the rules and customs of the EBU. How do they treat the different entities? What is Catalonia by the definition of the EBU? Two things are clear, namely that countries can not be represented by multiple entries, and that countries can only be represented as a whole. So we can not have Catalonia in the contest together with 'Spain without Catalonia', nor can we have Catalonia and Spain in the Contest together. So I think by the EBU rules there is no way Catalonia can participate. And for that reason, I think we should not include Catalonia. And if we don't include Catalonia, the whole thing is solved because we wouldn't have to change 'countries' to 'broadcasters' or whatever change.

What Spain could do, is introduce a system like Belgium, where different broadcasters are responsible for Eurovision in different years, but representing the same country. I think that is the only way TVC could participate as an independent broadcaster. Hhl95 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that Catalonia should be in the same category as the rests, because all of them are countries, and Catalonia isn't, it is Spain. We shouldn't keep in mind the opinion of users like @Adrianchue as his opinion is clearly political, thinking that Catalonia is a real country, when it's not. We can have political information and articles, but Wikipedia should stay neutral in this case, and show the reality. The reality is that Catalonia is an autonomous community, whether some people like it or not. It is because of that reason that I proposed "other territories" or "other broadcasters". In that category I would include Catalonia, only Catalonia, as Kosovo is a country. (✉) 20:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"Other broadcasters" is the best option. There is endless debate over if they are countries, territories, etc., that will lead to constant edit warring. They are all broadcasters and the EBU is a collection of broadcasters. This way also, in the case of countries with multiple broadcasters, it would not raise an issue if more than one national broadcaster made statements about Eurovision participation. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The debate should not be whether Kosovo and/or Catalonia are countries, but which definition we use. Once we determined a definition, we can go by that definition and assess what Kosovo and Catalonia are. And the definition I plea for, is the legal/scientifical definition. I think we should be able to find agreement somewhere and it doesn't have to lead to edit warring.

But maybe I should ask another question: why do we want to mention Catalonia anyways, while it leads to a lot of confusion and while there is no prospect for participation? I think the best thing to do is to avoid everything and just remove Catalonia from the page. Once there are serious signs that Catalonia could/might/will participate, other than just the broadcaster becoming a member, we could see again whether and how to include Catalonia. Many other regional broadcasters are members, but we never treated them as serious contenders for participation. Never did we discuss possible participation of Bavaria (BR), Hesse (HR), Thuringia, Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt (MDR), Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein (NDR), Bremen (RB), Wallonia (RTBF), Berlin and Brandenburg (RBB), Saar (SR), Wales (S4C), Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatine (SWR), Flanders (VRT) and North Rhine-Westphalia (WDR). All of them are members of the EBU, but we never discussed them, for obvious reasons. Since apparently that is our policy, I think we should treat Catalonia the same way and just not mention it on the page. Hhl95 19:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The ARD is the EBU member broadcaster, NDR and the like are part of the consortium so the ARD can appoint any to participate on its behalf, representing Germany, as they have done multiple times now. We list Catalonia because TV3 and FORTA have the same ambitions to join the contest as others, e.g. Kosovo and Liechtenstein. The Faroese broadcaster recently stated that it would be eligible tp join the, EBU, and they are currently voting on changing the entry criteria further (to what extent is unknown), so we cannot tell which chance Catalonia has in this. Catalonia's maybe-partocipation has been covered broadly in sources so I see no reason not to include it, especially since it discusses recent events. Lordtobi (✉) 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well first of all, not everything that is covered in sources, should necessarily be covered here. I find that you are relying too much on sources when it comes to choosing what information we want to present here. You are treating Wikipedia as if we should gather all available information in one place. I don't think that's how it works. Wikipedia is not some sort of news collecting website. Wikipedia is independent. Therefore, the right order of events is this one: first we decide which information we want to present here. Then, once there is a source for that specific piece of information we decided to cover here, we can add that information. And all other information that the sources provide, is not included here. This is more of a general statement about your way of thinking. We decide whether we include information, it's not the sources that decide it for us.

I think our job is to stick to Eurovision 2020. If there are recent events regarding EBU membership of certain broadcasters, this should be covered on the European Broadcasting Union page, and not on this event page. Again, it's your way of thinking that bothers me here. Our task is not to collect news on recent events regarding the EBU. Our task is to provide information about Eurovision 2020.

If we can not tell what chance an entity has, we should not include it. If the chances of an entity are dependent on future events such as an EBU voting, I think we should not include it until that voting happened. I think we should only include entities for which the path is clear by the rules that are now in place. By the current rules, there is no way Catalonia can participate since TVE represents all of Spain, so we shouldn't include it. By the current rules, it is clear that once Kosovo is admitted to the EBU, it is allowed to participate. So we can include Kosovo, since it is able to participate under the current conditions.

And last but not least: the ARD does not provide an explanation for Flanders, Wallonia and Wales. So I still think we should treat Catalonia in the same way. Hhl95 20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If something is covered heavily in sources, it is well warranted a place here. CCMA, on behalf of Catalonia, attempting to become an EBU member through various means was extensively covered. What we are not doing is presenting every single intricate detail there is in any source available. Since these changes also work directly to debut in 2020, they are also appropriate in this very article. Catalonia's entry consists of four measly sentences, not too much and not too little. Furthermore, we don't know what chance any entity here has. RTL is now a for-profit private network, RTK might get blocked by stations of countries that do not recognize Kosovo, BNT might go bankrupt. We are stating what possibilities there are, the decisions are made by the EBU and Eurovision steering group. Lordtobi (✉) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's still a wrong way of thinking. Sources should not dictate what we include, otherwise Wikipedia becomes subjective. For RTK, there is just one treshold to go, namely being admitted or not. For Catalonia, that's not the case. First it has to be admitted. Yet once it is admitted, it cannot participate because it is represented by Spain, which already confirmed its participation. So Catalonia has no place here. But the most important thing is: we have to be consistent. You cannot write that all Spanish provinces might get the ability to participate and then only mention Catalonia. Then you should mention them all as they are in an equal position. But then you should also mention all the German Bundesländer and Wales. After all, they are already a member, so they are even closer to participation. So go and change that. Hhl95 01:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The ARD sub-broadcasters are already taking part, just as part of ARD, which is represented by the NDR. None of them has once attempted to participate on behalf of a German federal state, so they are not covered. Wales and Scotland are already covered on List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest since they attempted to participate independently in the past (via broadcasters independent from the BBC), but they are not covered here since nothing has happened that could affect this contest.

Different for Catalonia; two broadcasters have widely been reported to attempt to join the EBU to potentially represent the community. It has the same ambitions as other broadcasters attempting to join the EBU and the contest. Whether they are allowed to is not ours to judge (WP:OR), but will be decided by the EBU. Should TV3 actually be accepted into the EBU, we will most likely get another statement (from the EBU, the member station, or other direct sources) on whether Catalonia can participate. As far as I can see, neither of us knows exactly whether autonomous parts of another country can take part, but the Faroese broadcaster saying that it would eligible makes me think they do. The EBU are currently also voting on new membership conditions, which might change this further.

The mindset is, everything noteworthy (but not every indiscriminate detail per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) can be added per WP:V; there has been more news on Catalonia than on e.g. Slovakia, so why not include it? The only reason you provide is "I don't think they can join because they are Spain". If you still wish to push ahead, please open a new new section and reach consensus to have it removed. Lordtobi (✉) 08:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not what I think, it's what follows from the EBU's decision on Scotland. Scotland is unable to participate, because the BBC represents all of the United Kingdom, as the EBU ruled. Logically, the same goes for Catalonia. It can not participate because RTVE represents all of Spain. I'm not sure if your interpretation of the Faroese broadcaster's statement is right. Interpreted literally: every EBU member is eligible to take part. So in that sense, there's no news. The question here is: who would they represent? Would they represent Faroer, or would they have to represent Denmark (which consequently means that DR would not take part simultaneously)? Under the current rules, I think the same goes for Catalonia. Once TV3 is accepted, of course it is eligible to take part. But would they represent Catalonia, or would they have to represent all of Spain, meaning that RTVE does not take part simultaneously? So eligibility, participation and representation are three different concepts that we should be aware of in dealing with sub-national or disputed entities.

The reasons I provide not to include Catalonia, are consistency on the one hand and relevance on the other. I think I've written enough about consistency. As for the relevance, we decide what is relevant for Wikipedia, and not the sources. You fail to see that. Even if every single news medium in the world reported on TV3 attempting to participate, and zero reported on Slovakia, we could still include Slovakia and exclude Catalonia for reasons of consistency and relevance. Sources and media coverage do not dictate what should be on Wikipedia. It's us, as the Wikipedia community, who decide what's worth to cover. With a big emphasis on us, because it's a thing we do together and not individually. It's a pity nobody else is getting involved here, because we don't seem to get to an agreement. Meanwhile you're editing the page to your own likes, while I'm waiting for an agreement, in order to avoid edit warring. I would appreciate if you wait for consensus too, before editing. It's the right thing to do, so I strongly recommend you to do so. Hhl95 03:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As people have begun changing this to something else again, I've gone ahead and applied the format discussed and mostly accepted here. Lordtobi (✉) 18:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

But if we go by broadcasters, than we should list them as broadcasters, and not as countries. So instead of [Flag/country name] I think we should go by [Broadcaster abbreviation] or [Flag/broadcaster abbreviation]. Hhl95 19:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We list which part of the world would be represented by the broadcaster(s). Semantically, "For Israel: IPBC has..." Lordtobi (✉) 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, a flag would be sufficient. Then go by [Flag/broadcaster abbreviation]. Right now it says 'Active EBU members' and then Albania. But Albania is not an EBU member, RTSH is. The title implies that it is a list of members, and the members are broadcasters. We were having this whole country debate only to conclude that we are going by broadcasters, yet we are now sticking to countries. We need to be consistent here. Hhl95 20:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"For Albania, RTSH is the participating EBU member". Same semanticity as above. Removing the country name would make little of a difference except that those unfamiliar with the flag would miss some context. Lordtobi (✉) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not what it says. We should be clear and consistent. If we go by countries, then name them as such. If we go by broadcasters, then list them as such. You seem to want to do everything your own way without any regards to consistency and relevance. I hope you understand that Wikipedia is a collaboration of its users and not a place where people should do whatever they want. That's how you get edit warring. You also should understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news reporting website. Hhl95 02:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that the talk is closed, but I just want to say that my opinion is not political at all. Maybe I have been misunderstood or I may not be right; I’m a human. Both Spanish and Catalan nationalisms (and any nationalism) are destroying us and there are lots of Spanish people from other regions who hate Catalans for this reason. I’m not Catalan, but I think it’s not fair.

On the other hand, Eurovision is music, so I think that "Other broadcasters" is a good name to avoid that things. I know that FORTA wants to participate if Spain doesn’t want to, but now we know that Spain will come back to the JESC, for example, and it is a good new! Finally, I want to defend myself by saying that this debate started because a user was changing the name and dividing. There was no problem before. Just saying… Adrianchue (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

As Catalonia is not a Country, I believe that it should be removed from the "Other Countries" section. Instead, it'll be fine to create a new section called "Other cases" and put the Catalonian issue there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiwjj (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right that Catalonia is not a country per se, though it is autonomous. To avoid have one section for Catalonia and Kosov each, we should more likely rename the section both are in. "Other cases" works, but I'd prefer "Other entities". Also, Kosovo is an edge-case, as 47% of UN member states will tell you that it is not a country either, so having the neutral term "entities" (or similar) is probably the best option. Would like to see more comments on this, though, and we should also retroactively enact such a change on other Contest articles that feature Catalonia. Lordtobi (✉) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should just maintain scientifical/legal definitions here: independence of a state has nothing to do with recognition by other states. The three core criteria are a territory, a people, and a governmental body that has sovereign authority over this territory and these people, or at least over a part of it, all regardless recognition. In that sense, Kosovo is a state, Palestine is a state, Taiwan is a state and there are more. Catalonia is autonomous, which means that it does not have sovereign authority. Now a state is not exactly the same as a country. For example, Greenland is a country and Denmark is a country, but together they form the state Kingdom of Denmark. The same counts for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. A particular and complicated case is the United Kingdom, of which I'm not certain which term applies to which entities. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are sometimes considered to be countries, but the state is the United Kingdom. Canada and Australia are countries too, and they have sovereign authority over their own country, but their head of state is Queen Elizabeth. So following simple logic, they are part of the United Kingdom in its literal sense. In the end, I think England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a similar states within the United Kingdom as Catalonia and some other provinces have in Spain. That would make it just a question of naming. Catalonia is called a province by law, while England is maybe called a country by law. But on the other hand, 'country' is also a widely used informal word for 'state'. So what I think we should do, is go by the definition of a state, but call them countries just because it is more common. This would mean that we include Kosovo in the countries section and that we create a separate section for Catalonia, calling it, say, an entity. However, I don't know what the exact rules of Eurovision are in this. If the rule is that only countries (states) can participate, I think we shouldn't pay attention at all to sub-national entities like Catalonia, because then there is no realistic prospect of them participating. Hhl95 06:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well Catalonia did technically declare independence in 2017, but that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that I would like to avoid having two separate sections with just one entry each, but that a joint section should not be labelled "countries" because, while Kosovo does fall under that category, we cannot classify Catalonia as such. "Entities" is a broader term with a more neutral meaning, and it can easily hold both entries. Lordtobi (✉) 08:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all autonomous entities that have declared their independence or whose participations would come as independent entities. Who are we to determine whether they are valid or not? What we have now will suffice, and any unnecessary altering will 100% lead to nationalist versus unionist edit warring, which we do not need. It is not Wikipedia's place to refer to certain nations as countries and others as "entities" when Wikipedia is not a government with the power to recognize independence. Kosovo may appear an independent country to an American reader but an autonomous territory to a Russian reader, while South Ossetia will be the same vice versa. Hell, Israel isn't recognized as an independent country by a number of nations but I don't see anyone discussing whether we should refer to it as an "entity" instead. There is no perfect way of handling this situation, but what we have been doing in recent years is the best way of doing it. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 09:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My potential fix for the Catalonia issue would add a sentence saying something similar to "Catalonia is regarded as an autonomous province of Spain, thus they would need special permission to compete independent from Spain". { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 09:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I can just repeat my point here: I think we should use the scientifical/legal standards, which are completely neutral since they only assess the actual state of an entity, regardless recognition. Catalonia may have declared independence, but it did not gain sovereign power. Kosovo and Israel, as well as Palestine, are independent countries with sovereign power over a certain territory and people. No matter which countries recognise it or not. I really think this is the most objective, most neutral and most acceptable way in which we can do this. And let's just use common sense. It is just ridiculous to include Catalonia there. The case of Catalonia is by no means similar to the case of Kosovo. Like you said, Wikipedia is not a government with the power to recognise independence, so we should not 'recognise' indpendence of an entity that is clearly not independent. I'm talking about Catalonia. Kosovo on the other hand, is clearly independent. International recognition is completely irrelevant to determine its independence.

It's the same with the United States recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital last year. It would still be the Israeli capital without American recognition. Did countries ever 'recognise' Paris as the capital of France? No. Yet it still is the capital of France in practice. The same counts for all other capital cities. And the same counts for Kosovo, Israel, Palestine and Taiwan. No matter whether you recognise it or not, everybody has to admit that there is a piece of land, and a group of people, over which nobody else than Kosovo/Israel/Palestine/Taiwan have the sovereign authority, thus making them effectively independent states. And this can not be said about Catalonia.

Another reason are the rules of the EBU. As Scotland is represented by the BBC, it cannot participate. The same counts for Catalonia: it is represented by TVE, so it cannot participate. So just for the absence of any opportunity to participate, we should not include entities such as Catalonia, Scotland. And you are probably going to say "yes, but from the Serbian point of view, it's the same for Kosovo". That's right, but the point is that the Serbian point of view doesn't matter; the actual situation of Kosovo does, without any regards to recognition from whatever country.

If you want to avoid any ambiguity, we could just go by broadcasters instead of countries, since the EBU is in essence a system of broadcasters, not of countries. However, that would require a huge load of alterations on all Wikipedia pages linked to Eurovision. So my advice, and I strongly recommend it, is to go by the scientifical/legal definition of an independent state. And that would mean that Kosovo is included, while Catalonia will not be mentioned on the page. Hhl95 02:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Just read the difference between country and sovereign state, please. Nowadays, Catalonia is not a sovereign state, but it is a country which is part of a larger state (Spain). Adrianchue (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Country" is loosely defined. As Wikipedia tells it, Kosovo is an independent country with limited recognition, while Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain. It's not really worth fighting about this, so we should, by consensus, decide what would be best: "Other entities" for all "other countries" entries (incl. Kosovo and Catalonia), secluded Catalonia in "Other territories", or leave all as-is. Lordtobi (✉) 15:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Lordtobi, thank you Javiwjj —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "other broadcasters" is the most appropriate change, since, as you said, the EBU is a collective of broadcasters not countries. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to § Other countries and territories for further discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I'm closing this request as the article is no longer protected, but I strongly encourage ongoing discussion on this issue. NiciVampireHeart 15:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved my latest contribution to this debate here:

The very currently listed sources dismiss any possibility of Catalonia having any sort of participation in the upcoming contest. As stated, approval from the EBU would allow individual autonomous regions from Spain to participate in Eurovision events where Spain chooses not to participate. Spain's participation has already been confirmed; therefore, RTVE will be representing all seventeen of Spain's regions. Spain has held an uninterrumpted track of partipation in the contest since its debut in 1961, so, even if the EBU were to allow individual regions to participate in Spain's absence, the likelihood of this being the case is far too small. Additionally, Catalonia is by no means a country. The Spanish Constitution allows a number of its regions to hold on to a claim of "nationality" to subside some of its more persistent —and obsolete— nationalistic sentiments, but these hold absolutely no value internationally as a "Basque" nationality within Spain will be regarded simply as Spanish nationality and citizenship abroad, making "Basque" or "Castilian" altogether irrelevant. In any case, the EBU is not considering this permission to non-sovereign regions as a validation of any status as country or nation by any means, but simply to promote the participation of a notable number of participants should more traditional sovereign members choose to withdraw; it will most likely not apply to the primary Eurovision contest since participation is large yearly. With this in mind, we might as well list each of the remaining Spanish regions with a regional television station along with similar speculative claims year after year. It might have been more relevant in the Eurovision Junior article, at least until Spain's return to the contest was announced a couple of days ago. 139.47.72.248 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulagria didn't witdrawn?

Really? I thought they witdrawn, andora and slovakia too. Esc Steven (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't formally withdrawn but its broadcaster has been reported to be out of money. More news are supposed to follow when the new committee is elected on 5 July. Lordtobi (✉) 12:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Did Turkey withdraw?

Did Turkey officially withdraw? As i saw someone adding Turkey to returning countries. Meandmyghost (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkey hasn't participated since 2013. There has been no official withdrawal for this year but no confirmation either. Someone added Turkey to returning countries as a joke. Lordtobi (✉) 13:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

EBU preference Maastricht

Dunno if and how we could include this, but insiders spoke to newspaper AD saying that the EBU has a preference for Maastricht as host city, and saying that the EBU unofficially made its choice already. Of course the choice is a choice of EBU + the organising broadcasters, so in the end we still need to wait and see what the broadcasters think. Source: https://www.ad.nl/show/eurovisie-songfestival-volgend-jaar-in-maastricht~a7068222/ Hhl95 21:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC+2)

ESCToday has the same info translated into our language. I'd hold off mentioning this per WP:RUMOUR, though; once the host city is announced, we can include this as a retrospective detail should it be true. Lordtobi (✉) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Yeah I agree with you here. But looking back on the frontrunner remark, this could be a reason to actually make such a remark with a serious source. But in the end it's better to not make such a remark at all. Hhl95 22:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC+2)

29 Countries

Eurovision World said 29 countries will prancpitraies in eurovision 2020. Esc Steven (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Genuflexion, who deemed Eurovisionworld's overview page as possibly unreliable as it does provide any sources it had taken the info from. Lordtobi (✉) 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I can follow Genuflexion's reasoning. Basically, Eurovisionworld is in the same position as we are: looking for clues on foreign and national media that a certain country is going to participate again. If Eurovisionworld can find a source for a certain country's participation, so can we. Some countries seem to be thrown in there on the list based on only the vaguest of speculation. At least until Eurovisionworld can open up a bit about how they select nations for their 2020 list, I say we consider them an unreliable source for this purpose.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, since we have chosen to prefer primary sources over secondary ones, it is favourable to compose this list out of primary sources (national broadcasters etc.) instead of secondary ones (Eurovision fan websites). Hhl95 19:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC+2)

Many outlets have spoken (via email exchange or else) with the broadcasters where no public statement exists, so sourcing this primarily through primary sources would be difficult. Primary sources can be used, but should generally not be preferred. Lordtobi (✉) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

They should be preferred unless they are not available. Hhl95 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC+2)

I wanna change the map

I wanna change the map to the current version but i cant change anything since its protected to vandalism... Meandmyghost (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I refreshed and i could. But where can i edit the map? Meandmyghost (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Meandmyghost, see File:ESC 2020 Map.svg and File:ESC 2020 Map (with small Australia).svg on Commons. Editing these will require you to download them, edit the SVG files, and reupload the accordingly. Lordtobi (✉) 22:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Rotterdam bill/Incidents section

Maybe this could be included in the yet non-existent, but usually featured Incidents section:

In Rotterdam, a municipal councillor proposed a bill to ban Madonna from the city of Rotterdam during the Eurovision Song Contest final of 2020. This, because in 2019 she showed the Palestinian flag, "symbol of the overthrow of the state of Israel" on the podium. The councillor writes that antisemitism in Rotterdam has increased in recent years and that because of that, Madonna may pose a great risk to public order. The proposal does not give any clue whether this ban would only be in place if the Contest would be held in Rotterdam, or just during the final of ESC 2020, regardless of the host city. On 9 July 2019 the council voted on the proposal, and the councillor that proposed the bill, was the only one to vote for it, meaning that the bill was rejected. Source: https://www.ad.nl/show/rotterdamse-raad-stemt-over-gebiedsverbod-madonna-tijdens-songfestival~ac444d3e/?fbclid=IwAR3YpZXq_VYNjUrP_djCAfvD3zyK3X-zr3w8u7Guxml-wG2jcqeh0aMAGP4 Hhl95 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC+2)

I'd say this would belong to the subsection of the Madonna incident on the 2019 contest's page, as it is a direct reaction. If it actually takes effect (which would also mean that Rotterdam has to host the contest in the first place), this can also be added here somewhere. Lordtobi (✉) 23:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you're right about that. It may only be relevant here in case Rotterdam is the host city. Otherwise it could be a bit out of place. Hhl95 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC+2)

FYI: The motion (it was not a bill) was soundly rejected by the municipal council of Rotterdam, with just the proposer voting in favour and all others against. I don't think this fluke warrants more than the mention on the 2019 page.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)