Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Montenegro

Are you sure the news about Montenegro withdrawing is true? Because i saw this on a website ending with Blogspot in the past EuroFan98 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

esctoday have now confirmed it (http://esctoday.com/177853/montenegro-rtcg-withdraws-from-eurovision-2020/) which looks a little more concrete but I'm not sure if esctoday is listed as an approved source. Toffeenix (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The director of RTCG denied Montenegro's withdrawal and says a decision is to be expected in the next couple of days. The source (in Montenegrin): https://www.vijesti.me/zabava/muzika/u-narednih-par-dana-odluka-o-ucescu-crne-gore-na-eurosongu. I opt for removing Montenegro from countries that have withdrawn until an official announcement is made. Jesper2306 (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

they withdrawal see here [1]. Avco123 (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Montenegro: Director General of RTCG denies Eurovision withdrawal has taken place

You still sure about Montenegro withdrawing? Because I think you need to read this before you confirm that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor M98 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

https://oneurope.co.uk/countries/montenegro/its-no-go-for-montenegro-at-eurovision/ read this please. Avco123 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Lordtobi can you help with that? Avco123 (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Avco123, OnEurope is not more reliable than other fansites, and even the source you linked indicates that a decision has yet to be made. The statement comes from RTCG's DG and we have no reason to doubt it (I also find it more credible than an anonymous email sent to ESCToday). We should keep Montenegro in the non-confirmed pile, but also not mark it as withdrawn just yet. The decision by RTCG is expected next week, and somewhere along the way, the EBU should get around the publishing the full list as well. Lordtobi (✉) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should include Montenegro in the list (and the map) just like we did. The list is not a list of countries that confirmed their participation; it is a list of countries that showed their provisional interest and intention in participating. For that, we can use the source that we had regarding Montenegro. The interest and intention is there. If confirmation is the criterium, there are probably much more countries in the list that 'still have to take a decision' just like Montenegro, but already expressed their intention. We can always remove Montenegro when they appear not to be participating. Or we have to change the list to 'confirmed' and find out which countries actually decided on it and which still have to. Hhl95 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC+1)

Moldova

Sammyham84, "Moldovan broadcaster has yet to confirm or deny this information regarding the selection process for Eurovision Song Contest 2020, in Rotterdam" the selection process don't know yet, but they will Participate this year. Avco123 (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Avco123, I'm not aware that EurovisionFun is a credible source but we have two sources replicating its information, so can mention it, but should avoid marking it as clearly confirmed. Lordtobi (✉) 11:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
In both Escxtra and Wiwibloggs mention that the Moldovan Broadcaster have not confirmed their participation and I do not believe that Eurovision Fun is a reliables source. Sammyham84 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Morocco

I see that Morocco has been both removed from the map and from the "Active EBU members" section of "Other countries". I know that it was a long while ago, and that they have not shown interest in returning to the Eurovision Song Contest, but it would be wrong to pretend that their participation in 1980 didn't happen and they should certainly be represented at least on the map, if not also in the article. Toffeenix (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Toffeenix, the map only shows countries where (quasi-)definite information in regards to participation is available. Morocco hasn't announced anything yet, and, even if it is highly unlikely, it would be too early to classify it as non-participating before the full list known (hence, Moldova is also greyed out). Likewise, it is presently not in the body because there has been no new information on the matter since like 2002. Lordtobi (✉) 06:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Yes, of course. This is what happens when I don't get enough sleep. Thanks, Lordtobi. Toffeenix (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo

The explanation for why Kosovo can't join the EBU in time is unclear. The use of the word 'thus' also seems out of place in the way its used, but I'm not sure exactly what should be written as I'm not familiar on the topic. I think this should be changed. --Internet is Freedom (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Internet is Freedom: EBU membership is a prerequisite to participate in any Eurovision event. Membership applications are evaluated at the EBU's General Assembly, which is only held twice a year (June/December). As Kosovo was neither an ITU nor a CoE member at the time of the June 2019 GA, its membership bid (via RTK) was turned down. The participation notification deadline for the ESC 2020 was in September, so even if Kosovo had become an ITU or CoE member by the time of the December GA and had its membership bid accepted, it would have been too late for Kosovo to still participate in this contest. If you believe that there is a better way to express this, feel free to edit the respective sentence. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 19:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

Change France artist to Tom Leeb JTGReport (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – Please provide a source. dummelaksen (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Symphony orchestra as the interval act during the grand final 98.115.186.129 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

why only frontname?

Can someone adding surnames on participants list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyknown (talk • contribs) 21:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of the artists compete under mononyms, others do not. Both forms are valid, and we use those used in the official representation of each country. Lordtobi (✉) 21:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

I believe the dates for the UK's artist and song announcement should be removed. There is nothing I've seen anywhere to suggest that it'll be revealed in April 2020, and unless the BBC has received permission from the EBU, this date would be beyond the cut-off for confirmation of song and artist by a few weeks. Jb108822 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit has been made by another user. Claimed as unsourced in edit summary. MadGuy7023 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

Malta’s Eurovision 2020 Participant is known by the mononym Destiny Escxpastel (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Remove Lewis Capaldi from the selected artist for the United Kingdom in the final. The reference used (68) does not actually state that he is the chosen performer. Compoteleon (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Information was removed by another user. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Since the song deadline is March 9, all of the blank spaces will be confirmed in March 2020, so that should be edited. DotPompom (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please be more specific. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This is also wrong. 9 March is the submission deadline, not the announcement deadline. Any broadcaster may have already submitted a song to the EBU but is still waiting to announce it publicly, e.g. to finish shooting a music video or for other reasons. IceWelder [✉] 21:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

Change "French (containing somes phrases in Albanian)" to just "French" (regarding Switzerland's entry), as there is no Albanian phrases in the entry. 90.56.23.119 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ― Ætoms [talk] 18:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Non participating countries - Broadcast

Hungary: Freddie and Dallos Bogi (DUNA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:8B80:2E1:4943:8E6:E3D:A95E (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide a source. dummelaksen (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Gagnamagnið (Think About Things)"

Since Daði has been very clear with "Think About Things" being the real version of the song, the title should be "Think About Things". Possibly "Think About Things (Gagnamagnið)". [1] 83.250.198.201 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We're using the official song titles as shown on Eurovision.tv. I just checked and apparently it got changed from "Gagnamagnið (Think About Things)" to "Think About Things", so you're right. Also, the act's name is now "Daði og Gagnamagnið" instead of "Daði & Gagnamagnið". I'll change both the name and the song title in the participant list. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://escbubble.com/2020/02/dadi-freyr-i-originally-wrote-the-song-in-english-to-me-that-is-the-real-version-of-the-song/

Little Big

Little Big's song name is Uno, Dos, Cuatro?? www.genius.com/albums/Eurovision/Eurovision-song-contest-rotterdam-2020--92.10.143.38 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This might be, but we will have to wait for an official announcement. Genius.com is crowdsourced and not reliable. IceWelder [✉] 07:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I've thought the songs have to be announced until the submission deadline which has has been ended on March 9, 2020. --Melly42 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
9 March is the submission deadline, the date on which the EBU (and the EBU only) is required to have received the songs. Announcements to the public are not bound to this deadline and Russia could choose to keep the song a secret until the release of the album, though this is rather unlikely. Rumour is that the song will be premiered on Russian radio on Friday. IceWelder [✉] 10:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus as a controversy/incident

I feel like that there should be a mention about the threat of cancellation due to the Coronavirus I. The incident since there are many sources that I found that mentioned it. I believe that it should be mentioned like

And more what do you think Sammyham84 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sammyham84:I was WP:BOLD and added the section since the other international event, 2020 Summer Olympics is already documenting the effect of COVID-19 on its article as well. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan's entry (language)

Azerbaijan's entry contains one repeated line in Japanese, "Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:830A:B03D:3D00:B00E:74E6:E8E4:8748 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus outbreak

Due to the 2020 coronavirus outbreak it is possible that the contest may be canceled. NPO is currently in talks with the EBU to consider a contest without any audience or postponing it.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>onal/9329398/coronavirus-casts-a-shadow-on-2020-eurovision-contest|title=Coronavirus Casts a Shadow on 2020 Eurovision Song Contest|work=Billboard|last=Cantor-Navas|first=Judy|date=6 March 2020|accessdate=6 March 2020}}</ref> J4lambert (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I added a section about the COVID-19 virus, outbreak and subsequent effect it is having on the contest however I don't think we need that template at the top. The 2020 Summer Olympics is documenting any effect the virus and outbreak is having on the Olympics but doesn't have that on the top right now and I feel we should follow its lead. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alucard 16:, thanks from me personally for this. I was curious too now to see if there is anything here about this, and on the other hand wondered if there won't be overweight of detailed info as it's current and ongoing. I read on the article and to me it was very interesting, well written, to the point, with good cases and stuff I didn't even know yet in regards to my own country. As I then came to see if there is something more on the talk page - small wonder to find it was who contributed this. I currently can barely be active myself, but I'm happy to see you keep involvement with the Eurovision area as well, I appreciate your overall maintenance and content contributions as in this case. אומנות (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome אומנות hopefully you can return to active editing soon when possible. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

Add arabic and hebrew as language in the Israeli entry. AntonCarl (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It is already added as a footnote. ― Ætoms [talk] 20:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Head of Delegation

In the "Voting" subsection inside "Format", it is stated that the Spansish Head of Delegation gave information about possible changes to the voting system. Toñi Prieto is not exactly the HoD, but the Head of Entertainment of the spanish boradcaster. She is involved in Eurovision but the HoD's would strictly be Ana María Bordas and Antonio Losada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniovd (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"withdrew"

RESOLVED
Consensus achieved that "non-returning" should be used instead of "withdrawing" for countries choosing to not participate the following year. Templates have been updated to reflect this. Grk1011 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Because I was reverted with "This is getting ridiculous." as only reasoning, I'll have this discussed. The sentence "Hungary and Montenegro withdraw" is factually incorrect. Per Dictionary.com (5), "to withdraw" means "to remove oneself from some activity, competition, etc." or, in our case, to retract one's the application for participation in Eurovision. Hungary and Montenegro both did not do this, they did just as little to (not) participate as Turkey, Morocco, and Tunisia because participation is not perpetual. The infobox does the same mistake, as do other older articles. One grotesque example is 2011:

Montenegro had applied to take part in the contest on 4 December, but decided against participation and withdrew its name on 23 December, two days before 25 December no-strings-attached deadline. (...) Thus, in this edition, no country withdrew.

Similarly, articles for contests where countries were relegated (e.g. 1996, 2003) state that these countries withdrew, although they were clearly barred from entering. I previously amended the "withdrew" wording in this article to make the distinction clear, albeit a bit wordier, but I would argue that we do not actually need this information in this article. The 2020 contest is completely unaffected by something not happening just because it happened the year prior. To 2020, apart from the winner, 2019 is no different than 2013. The current state, across all articles, is not acceptable. IceWelder [✉] 19:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As you mention, this the term "withdrawing" is used in that sense across the entire project, every single year and probably in the articles of countries that have discontinued their participation at least once. I would say if you intend to enact a change like that the place to do it is not here, but the talk page for the Eurovision Project itself, so anyone involved with the project can weigh in. Not A Superhero (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Not A Superhero, that's where I went first, but given that most of the Eurovision WikiProject ignores its talk page (and Wikipedia's guidelines in general), I have no other choice than going local and then stringing through older contests to fix this rather obvious error.
Also, @CycloneYoris, please explained how it is biased to remove factual errors. Just because it has always been done incorrectly does not mean that this mistake should not be curbed now. IceWelder [✉] 07:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the field could be renamed to better reflect the situation that a country who took part in a previous year didn't return for the following year? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@IceWelder Because (in my opinion) it appears as though you're trying to hide the fact that some countries withdrew this year just to make this article look better than the rest. However, I do agree that these errors should be corrected to avoid any type of confusion, but these corrections should also be made in past Eurovision articles as well and not only on this one. Maybe renaming the field as Alucard 16 says could be a better solution. CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If y'all do a search on Google for "Eurovision" "withdraw" or "Eurovision" "withdrew" you will find anytime a participating country that took part in a contest one year then decides not to return (for whatever reason at any stage) the following year is reported/considered "withdrawing" from the contest. Obviously this applied in clear terms to Ukraine last year or with Russia in 2017. However sources that are used here as reliable sources (like The Guardian) considers Hungary, for example, as withdrawing from the 2020 contest. [2] Eurovix considers Turkey withdrawing after the 2012 contest [3] so does ESCToday. The official Eurovision website for Slovakia even states this blurb after the country decided not to take part in Eurovision Song Contest 2013:

After the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest Slovakia withdrew from the competition and has not participated since.

Also in the case of Bulgaria:

In 2019, the country withdrew from the contest but returned again in 2020.

Even this article from the official website is correct about the UK withdrawing in 1957. So I mean it's not a factual error by saying Country A that participated in year 1 withdrew from the contest because they didn't participate in year 2. In the case of this year Wiwibloggs says Montenegro withdrew as well so the statement that they both withdrew from this contest is not factual error since the sources (Guardian for Hungary, Wiwibloggs for Montenegro) back up the words. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We talk about this frequently. Not participating the next year does not mean a country has withdrawn. That is reserved for countries that already committed, but withdrew after the deadline. There has to be an intent. If some sites want to use the term incorrectly, that's on them. For an encyclopedia, we are held to a higher standard. Using "withdrawn" is confusing unless you follow the contest closely. Grk1011 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Grk1011: I get where both sides are coming from and the definition of the term in everyday sense however I'm looking at the situation from a neutral point of view based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines specifically WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V.
  • To fix the issue that IceWelder mentioned above during the years of regulation (which would also fix Romania's disqualification in 2016) is if we change the term "Withdrawing countries" in the Infobox to a more neutral, catch-all term such as "Non-returning countries". This way the neutral term is not limited by a specific reason for a country that participated in a previous year but absent the next. The line about Montenegro could be re-written to better reflect the broadcaster's situation in 2011. The bit "Thus, in this edition, no country withdrew." is not backed up by any reliable source and at this point is considered WP:OR. I was WP:BOLD and removed that bit. If someone finds a reliable source to back up that claim it can be re-added at that point. This kind of claim is something Wikipedia should not be making on its own even if it is true.
  • Sources that use mix terminology like Eurovoix will have in the title "X country withdrew" but in the body will usually say "X country confirmed it's non-participation on D Month Year" followed by the reason (if given). This is the most common scenario and we at Wikipedia have leeway on how we can word things. Like for Montenegro this year the term "withdraw" is not used at all in the "Other countries" section despite some of its reliable sources using the term. Instead Wikipedia is using the term "non-participation" which also appears in reliable sources. This is acceptable and nothing wrong in doing this as, like you mentioned, more readers who don't closely follow Eurovision would understand the context of "non-participation" more than "withdrew". We should look at Hungary and see if it could be worded similar since Hungry also confirmed non-participation before the deadline but in its bit the term "withdrawal" is used there which will lead to reader confusion if we are using different terms for similar situations. We need to be consistent in terminology used but not conflict the reliable sources as that can lead to WP:OR and WP:V issues and impact potential WP:GA status in the future. Also this essay I found would be helpful in some cases to editing Eurovision articles when we have two reliable sources with conflicting information Wikipedia:Conflicting sources.
So I'm not against a consensus for a change in fact I'm proposing a solution but I'm just wanting to ensure the consensus is in line with policies and guidelines is my point. As editors I believe we should work towards getting these articles to GA and even FA status so a lot of my thinking is based on policy and guidelines. For example the line in this article that triggered the new discussion could be re-worded as:

Forty-one countries will participate in the contest. Bulgaria and Ukraine will return after their absences from the 2019 contest, while Hungary and Montenegro confirmed their non-participation after taking part in the previous edition.

I don't think anyone would object to replacing the word "withdrew" with "non-participation" since the reliable sources have used both terms to describe the absence of both Hungary and Montenegro this year and for the short term (and stability of the article) is a good compromise. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Alucard 16, agreed. One note I would add is that Wikipedia is not strictly bound by the exact wording of the individual sources. While the relevant information available should be reflected as-is, we can still apply some WP:COMMONSENSE, in our case regarding the meaning of the word "withdraw", keeping in mind that some news outlets (even reliable ones) might be using that particular word either deliberately to have a shorter/snappier title or simply incorrectly.
I see you already handled the cases on this page, thanks for this. I will take care of the template. Older contest's articles will probably also need amending, should I handle this as well? IceWelder [✉] 10:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@IceWelder: You can but like I mentioned each is a case by case bases if the source is saying "withdrew" and doesn't provide any other terms like in the case of the UK in 1958 I would recommend leaving that one as is. My main concern is ensuring that we don't stray too far from the sources so if any of the Eurovision articles undergo a peer review, GAN review or FAC review the reviewer doesn't flag the wording used in the articles vs the sources as original research issues. Most modern contests shouldn't pose an issue to apply WP:COMMONSENSE without causing a WP:OR issue since the sources tend to use several terms in addition to "withdrew" like I mentioned above. It's mainly the older contests that are relying on fewer sources that we have less leeway. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 10:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, when a country did actually withdraw (UK 1958, Montenegro 2011, Greece 1982), it should continue to say "withdrew" in the prose. I will string through the older contests in the coming days, as I find the time. IceWelder [✉] 10:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @009988aaabbbccc: I directed you to this discussion at least twice now and you keep ignoring it. You are already undoing changes specifically discussed here, the least you could do is actually participate in the discussion. Your only arguments thus far have been:

At least say which countries won't participate. This is getting ridiculous.

and

Why changing something that became common for God's sake?

Neither of these addresses the actual issue, nor do they include any reasoning for your changes. IceWelder [✉] 11:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay mister, I give up. You can edit this however you want, whatever you want. Greetings. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@009988aaabbbccc: Actually I was the one who suggested changing the infobox field to Non-returning countries as a compromise to the situation at hand that wasn't IceWelder they just happened to agree with the suggestion and implemented the change as they have more experience with template editing and AWB than I do. The whole point of discussing things is to reach a consensuses your contributions are very valuable. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 11:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I got it. I'm really sorry for my behaviour. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, this looks great. I appreciate you going back to change all the other articles as well! Grk1011 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I agree with the changes. I also thought that "withdrew" wasn't the best word to describe the non-returning countries because they all have to apply every year for the contest, it's not an ongoing membership. If it's too much work to change all previous articles, at least we could use the new terminology from now on. Heitordp (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broadcasters, commentators and spokespersons sections

While most sections of these articles have a consistent format from year to year this seems to be the one section that lacks a consistent format which is evident just by looking at the past two decades. With the current Contest there are two big issues when it comes to this section that needs to be addressed that I noticed.

Streaming platforms

Streaming platforms acting as the exclusive broadcaster in their home territory (while still small) is starting to become more prevalent especially with the Netflix deal for the United States. In Eurovision articles the term "broadcaster" the consensus seems to include radio and traditional television. However they are inconsistent with streaming even though the Wikipedia article on broadcasting includes streaming as part of broadcasting. Currently we have two different ways on handing streaming platforms: 1. treat them as if they were traditional broadcasters (see 2018 for China and 2019 for United States) or 2. give them their own dedicated section (2020 for United States).

  • China was the first country to use a streaming platform exclusively for the Contest for Eurovision Song Contest 2018 when Hunan Television decided to air the Contest exclusively on their YouTube-like service Mango TV. In this case it is grouped with the non-participating countries because they sent commentators.
  • United States is the second country to air the contest exclusively on a streaming platform with Netflix. Currently Eurovision Song Contest 2019 includes Netflix in the non-participating countries section alongside radio broadcaster WJFD-FM.
  • As of now Eurovision Song Contest 2020 essentially gives the United States it's own section under "Video on demand release" with a single sentence.

The easiest thing to do would be to remove this section entirely and move the United States back to the "Non-participating countries" section. If someone wants to know more about Netflix they can click the wiki-link to the article to find out more. Giving the United States it's own section just because Netflix is a streaming service is giving a single non-participating country WP:UNDUE weight. Also the date and time Netflix adds the Contest to their platform is no different than a traditional broadcaster airing the Contest on a delay.

Now one argument is we don't include the YouTube streams on the Eurovision YouTube channel. Currently the format of the article doesn't include a good spot to include that information. Second, the EBU hosts those streams and they are available in most participating countries alongside the member broadcaster's own broadcasts and online streams (i.e. someone in Sweden can watch the final on SVT, SVT's own streaming player and the ESC YouTube channel.)

Netflix is different as it is the only "official" outlet in the United States for the 2019 and 2020 Contests. In 2019 they added all three shows on 22 July 2019 but that was due to them announcing the deal on 19 July 2019. There has been no announcement how Netflix plans to handle the 2020 Contest in terms of release.

Titling of the section

This section should have a title that accurately represents all the information in the subsections. The current title used, "Commentators and spokespersons" is very specific to the participating countries even though this section includes non-participating broadcasters. The previous title used prior to 2018 "International broadcasts and voting" was a better title for the section. However I think re-titling the entire section "Broadcasters, commentators and spokespersons" would be a short, sweet, simple and appropriate title for the entire section that accurately represents its contents.

After looking at two decades worth of Eurovision articles there have been a variety of solutions used to house this information from tables to bulleted lists. Since there is a large amount of broadcasters in general it might be beneficial to switch to a table format which is easier to read and could be easier to edit and fix issues. Also if a table format is used at least for the broadcasters and commentators we can move streaming services like Netflix back in with broadcasters and as a compromise use notes in their specific rows to indicate this is a "video on demand service" instead of creating a one line single sentence section.

I created two table mock-ups using the data from the 2019 Contest in my sandbox which could kill two issues with one stone so to speak. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Couldn't agree more! The header "Broadcasters, commentators and spokespersons" would be a good compromise and I think the table format you propose gives a better overview than the current format. I would prefer your first proposal (the hybrid format) though, so there won't be an overload of information in the table. Besides, the participating broadcasters are the ones in charge of choosing the spokespersons, so in the case of Belgium – for example – displaying David Jeanmotte as the spokesperson for La Une (operated by RTBF), Eén and Ketnet (operated by VRT) would be incorrect as strictly speaking he only was the spokesperson for RTBF (the participating broadcaster in 2019). Therefore, it would be better to have separate sections for the spokespersons and the broadcasters/commentators. ― Ætoms [talk] 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ætoms: Yeah after thinking about it the first option is defiantly the better of the two, a lot cleaner as well and would avoid confusion about who's responsible in regards to choosing the spokesperson like with Belgium. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ætoms and IceWelder: I noticed that with the addition of the Incidents section in its regular place it pushed the "Production" section down which includes the VOD section for the United States. This really is not a good thing to keep the United States broadcast separate from the rest regardless of medium used as it can cause confusion for the average reader if they are wanting to know what countries are in general showing the Contest. If we adopt Proposal #1 we can merge the United States into the table and integrate the single sentence of the VOD section into the table as a note. I have a working example for the 2020 contest in this sandbox on how it would look. (Omni has a TBA under shows since the source didn't say if Omni is broadcasting all three shows like last year. TBC is currently used for the Commentators column for Canada/United States in the demo until it is confirmed these countries will have no commentary like last year. TBA is used for all other countries since the current article is using TBA in the bulleted list.) Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to reply. The table looks great and provides much better overview over the countries. I still disagree with Netflix being labelled a 'broadcaster', but this could probably be fixed by moving the note to the name itself, rather than hiding it in the refs section. IceWelder [✉] 08:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Well I put the note in the "Ref(s)" column for three reasons.
  • One is for tables and infoboxes WP:TV doesn't generally make a distinction between a linear broadcaster, a VOD non-streaming broadcaster or any of the streamers. Shows like House of Cards use the same Original network field regardless if a show aired on the BBC or Netflix for example. If WP:TV isn't making a distinction there we really shouldn't override them here and make a huge distinction.
  • Second, when it comes to the table I tried to create the most constant, uniform look as possible that can be applied to all Contests that use this format. For the non-participating countries the notes would get out of hand if placed in various columns like show(s), broadcaster(s) and commentator(s). The table looks cleaner if it can be consolidated into one singular note in the Ref(s) column. It also reduces space and the need to use a cite a single source multiple times. (I explain more in detail below.)
  • Third, for the 2019 contest for both Canada and United States (Netflix) I had to use {{Cite episode}} three times (one for each show) to support the No commentary bit in the Commentator(s) column. If I was to put a delayed note in the Shows column for both situations, a note about Netflix in the Broadcaster(s) column each note would need its own source. Also each row needs its own source so this would have caused the Ref(s) column to have 4 total sources for each row the main source plus the 3 cite episode sources. By combining everything into a single note for each country and placing it into the Ref(s) column I was able to save space, reduce the number of sources appearing in the Ref(s) column and reduce the number of times I would have to use a single source to cite multiple bits of information.
I hope that clarifies my logic for why I put those kinds of notes in the Ref(s) column. Here how a complete table would look. I used {{n/a}} for Malta, Moldova and Slovakia in 2019 because information about their commentators (or possibly no commentators) was not available in any sources I could find. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
How about this, I made a change in the 2020 article and switched the position of the note so instead of them being after a reference I moved them before the reference thus giving them more emphasis. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

this would have caused the Ref(s) column to have 4 total sources for each row the main source plus the 3 cite episode sources

The notes can be independently sourced from the inside and do not need the source attached from the outside (in this case in the Refs column). I also wouldn't make this article depend too much on the 2019 (or a prior) article. However, I will have to agree that if you were planning to split up the notes to suit the individual columns, causing multiple notes to be crated, it would become a mess, and one centralized notes is better. Of course, a "notes" column is still possible, albeit mostly empty for the regular broadcasters. As long as I do not have a better solution for this, I won't object to your changes. IceWelder [✉] 10:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@IceWelder:After looking back at 2019 and reading your comment there doesn't need to be a reference outside of the note for US-Netflix. The note now has all the references and should be sufficient for that row. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 10:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I did the same to the 2020 contest as well so that should help fix the issue. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 10:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Pre-parties

I think we should not mention pre-parties on this page. Pre-parties are separate events that are in no way attached to the EBU or the organising broadcaster. Of course they have a link to Eurovision, but that is not enough. Many local cafes also hold pre-parties and we don't include them. They are in exactly the same situation, but just on a smaller scale. So every pre-party has to be left out. Hhl95 18 March 2020, 15:10 (UTC+1) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say any event with multiple artists participating that is held in a regular fashion can be considered notable enough to be mentioned, particularly when discusing the lead-up to the cancellation of the contest itself. Not A Superhero (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. They are completely separate events. So their cancellation is not a lead-up to the cancellation of the Contest, since there are different organisations deciding about that. The EBU is not dependent on pre-parties and the ESC would still be cancelled if pre-parties continued. A lead-up implies that events/decisions objectively influence each other. The cancellation of pre-parties did not have any influence on the cancellation of the ESC. So there is no sense in having them on the page, nor in other sections if they are there. Hhl95 19 March 2020, 04:08 (UTC+1) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Cancellation, etc.

According to Wiwibloggs, Israeli media are reporting that Eurovision 2020 will be canceled with an official announcement set to happen Wednesday (today). Our article currently does not address the various options the EBU laid out to circumvent cancellation, e.g. holding the event without an audience, nor that yesterday's reference group meeting took place. Should we include these? IceWelder [✉] 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I would wait for an official statement from the Reference Group considering the article is saying the decision will be revealed Wednesday. Speculation at this point shouldn't be included. Now articles like this should be included about potential alternate plans like from the director general of an official broadcaster. Even if the contest is cancelled we should include that anyway for complete coverage of the situation from a timeline perspective. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Also if the Contest is officially postponed, modified (i.e. online only, no live audience) or canceled please add it to List of major events affected by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic thank you. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The competition did get the cancellation according to the EBU yesterday, so there will be no contest! SmashStar30 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, all 41 artists who will be taking part in this year's competition won't compete next year according to the rules of the contest. SmashStar30 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The artists may, but the songs cannot. Note that this section regarded the rumours surrounding the cancellation, the actual announcements came shortly thereafter, so this section has little use. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Voting system

@IceWelder: @Doktorbuk: With regard to the back-and-forth edits regarding the voting system, we should reach a consensus. I don't think it's right to include the voting system in the infobox: I don't think we should assume the voting system would be the same simply because there was no confirmation otherwise, and that would violate WP:CRYSTAL. It's better to not include something correct than include something incorrect. It also doesn't serve any purpose to the reader as the voting never took place. dummelaksen (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • My point exactly. The voting system is not sourced anywhere in the article, failing WP:V, and it is only included because no change had yet been announced, which is WP:OR. Also considering that the contest won't take place and therefore no voting system will be used, we should not include it. IceWelder [✉] 21:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that the voting system does not need to be in the infobox this year. The canceling of the event doesn't mean change everything to "would have". We need to really think about what is relevant and trim out what's not. Grk1011 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This discussion and back-and-forth is truly the worst of Wikipedia. For the voting system to change in 2020, and not be mentioned before the unfortunate cancellation, is the stuff of fairy tales. You know, I know, we all know, that for the voting system to change, the EBU and organisers would have mentioned that far in advance. Just on a logistical level. Just on a production level. Just as a matter of common sense, a change in voting systems would have been known well before the Final. To get into an edit war over "unknown knowns" is, frankly, an embarrassment. If you truly believe in the importance of removing the voting system from this page, please do so, but just remember that you are involved in one of the most crackpot pieces of grandstanding I have experienced on Wikipedia for some time. I know, you know, we all know, that I am right: the voting system would not change for 2020, and I am holding my head up high as being the only person in this debate who is right. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Yes, common sense dictates the voting system would have been the same. No, that does not mean it's the place or responsibility of Wikipedia to make deductions. If it's not reported in secondary sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
I don't know what any of us did to warrant this insulting response from you. dummelaksen (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The thing to keep in mind is if the article is submitted for a GA or FA review what would be flagged as a potential issue. Under normal circumstances with a future contest having the voting system in the infobox isn't that big of deal because the voting system doesn't change much year to year and if a change does occur it is announced. Under normal circumstances, the voting system can be sourced after the fact at minimum with the cite episode method thus satisfying the verifiability requirements of a GA/FA review. Now in the voting section of the article it can be elaborated on since there currently two sentences. It mentions a proposed change by the Spanish HoD while the Greek HoD revealed the majority of delegations voted to maintain the "current" voting system. Now a reader not familiar to Eurovision reading this article first would ask "What is the 'current' voting system?" To answer this question we could explain how the 2019 voting system worked in this section as that is technically the "current" voting system. As far as the infobox is concerned it should be stripped down to only the basic, verifiable information at the time of the cancellation. Since the contest was not held the voting system in the infobox is not needed. The way the infobox currently looks accurately represents the state of the contest at the time of cancellation. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternative programming

Proposal: Due to the special situation this year, some of these type of shows are relevant enough to be included. If there is a need to separate them, I suggest we add the official alternative programs created by the EBU under a sub headline such as Official alternatives and the most relevant other international events, such as e.g. #EurovisionAgain and Eurostream2020, under Other alternatives. Some of these have gained endorsement and media attention from media and national broadcasters in many of the participating countries and information regarding them should therefore be considered of interest to the general public. While smaller alternative events run by only one broadcaster or website, should not be included. Zouki08 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources to substantiate that these unofficial shows are notable enough for inclusion here. The one you keep adding, Eurostream, in particular almost has no secondary sources attached to it. That said, there are dozens (if not hundereds) of such unofficial shows, and shouldn't list any of them here. Pure WP:COATRACKING. IceWelder [✉] 13:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that all the dozens or hundreds of other shows are made by just one website or even just one person, whereas Eurostream was a collaboration between 21 different news websites and is the one that gained support and attention from media, national broadcasters and even the EBU. I'd argue that it's also the most prominent one not only based on the size and the number of people who voted, but also by having several of the 2020 contestants as well as past Eurovision participants and delegation members involved in various ways. Similarly, there are many arrangements just like #EurovisionAgain happening right now, where different websites organise viewings of past contests. But #EurovisionAgain is the most relevant to mention because it is by far the biggest and has gained the most attention from the media as well as even help from the official Youtube channel. Overall, I believe these two meet the requirements to be relevant enough for a mention. I've also made the list of results collapsible so it will take up less space. If the lack of enough secondary sources is an issue then it won't be a problem to add more. Another option would be to potentially move these two and link to separate articles, similarly to Eurovision:_Europe_Shine_a_Light. But frankly I didn't think they were quite prominent enough to warrant their own pages, hence why a shorter section on the main Eurovision 2020 page ought to be enough. But I'm definitely willing to listen to other proposals of how these can be mentioned appropriately. Zouki08 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think EurovisionAgain is the least relevant of the crop. While it's creation is because of the lack of a 2020 contest, it really has nothing to do with this contest at all. If we still had a 2020 contest and the EBU still did EurovisionAgain, would it even have a sentence here? While these are all alternative programming events, this page overall is about the 2020 contest that did not happen. It's not a catch all for anything that touches upon it. Honestly that whole section should be reduced to just a couple of sentences listing each alternative with a brief description. No separate headings, etc. Grk1011 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2020/Archive_4&oldid=984112048"