Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020/Archive 1

Too early
In my over 10 years of being a Eurovision wiki editor we have never allowed a future contest to have an article before the next one has taken place.

Please see the following:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019.
 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29

Why would this year be any different? Grk1011 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that true? The 2019 article was created months before the 2018 contest took place, and earlier than this time last year. LexPro4 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to include firm details which I've largely trimmed the article to, but per WP:Speculation, we cannot include things like "If x country ends up joining the EBU this year then they could theoretically join the contest". That is not encyclopedic even if there is a source for it. Grk1011 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Understandable, and I completely agree. LexPro4 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * However, with regards to the list of countries competing in 2019, the list does not make any claim that any of the countries will participate in 2020 and explicitly states that they have made no announcement. This list was used in the lead up to both the 2018 and 2019 contests in their articles, so I would argue that this is different. LexPro4 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking a step back. What does the presence of the list do for the reader? If it's give them an idea of who could participate based on who has in the past, then it clearly goes against the policies about speculation in WP:FUTURE articles. Grk1011 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here when I stumbled upon the page while doing categorization work for the project, as I do periodically. It seems like every year the same exact discussion is back and editors expect a different result. I'm sorry, but it's really taxing and frustrating. To have to rehash things that were already settled 5+ years ago through large discussions with editors outside of our project.
 * If there is no assumption that they will return, what is the point of the section at all? Can't a reader just look at the 2019 page to see which countries participated? If you include something in the article that leads to someone making a logical assumption, that's exactly an implication. Grk1011 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Denmark
This DR article confirms that DMGP 2020 will take place, it says nothing about Eurovision. I think we should wait, even though its likely that Denmark will participate. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is true that mean Finland and Sweden also haven’t confirmed their participation then but I believe we should add them unless source say that they have not confirmed their participation Sammyham84 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It becomes OR if we start interpreting the statements, and with Eurovision 2019 we did wait with confirming some countries' participation despite their national final being confirmed. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * should Sweden and Finland be removed then because it is the same case as Denmark Sammyham84 (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will check the sources and personally I believe they should be removed if it's the same case. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but I have a feeling other users will remove them after this page becomes more current (when ESC 2019 is done) --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is completely the other way around. Unless a country has stated they will compete, they cannot be included. They don't need to prove to us that they won't compete.
 * In this case I am going to add Spain and Malta because they also confirmed their national selection Sammyham84 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But have they said they will compete in the Contest itself? That is really the only criterion for inclusion. Grk1011 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is misleading and becomes OR if we start interpreting articles that state nothing about Eurovision. Why the rush? Why can't we just wait for an official Eurovision confirmation? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a higher level of scrutiny in an encyclopedia and we don't really have any need to be the first to report on speculation that a country may participate. Sure, having a national final scheduled normally means the winner will participate in the contest, but that is not always the case. I don't see the issue with waiting until there is a formal source that announces their participation. Likely a reliable source will take the national final announcement as proof and that's fine, as long as it's the source making that connection, not us. Grk1011 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the article does not explicitly state that Denmark will participate in 2020, the DMGP has been used every time it was held to select the ESC representative., Every time Denmark did not participate in Eurovision, the DMGP was not held. It is thus most likely that DMGP means Eurovision participation for 2020. Nontheless, a confirmatory source should be added once available. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with, the no-rush mantra on Wikipedia is here for a reason - keep the articles aspiring for encyclopedic standards and differentiate them from enthusiastic news pieces and blogs, and that also goes for contradicting statements which editors don't even notice they make, which is weirder coming from those usually so firmly sticking to maintain accuracy and dry facts, such as , now saying - quote: "...the article does not explicitly states.. It is thus most likely.. Nonetheless, a confirmatory source should be added once available..." If there isn't a clear source, then the info shouldn't be kept "for the meantime" in any way, so the article stays modest, clean from OR. And really, and more important - On the general long run, this also saves from lots of future edit wars, speculations, discussions and such occurs for the so many countries preparing/claiming with no clear sources, occurs which happen every year a-new and just result in a waste of time and energy. Waiting is best, simple.
 * There is a difference between organizing a show that sometimes has selected the a Eurovision representative and organizing a show that was created for the sole purpose of selecting a Eurovision representative. DMGP exists only to choose a Eurovision representative, much like Melodifestivalen in Sweden and MGP in Norway. Announcing that the show will be held is the same thing as announcing they are competing. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure there is a difference between different national shows, only that it can always still mean even these Preselection-known shows may be held this specific year for the local national entertainment only - even if for the first time in history, or for the most held from the viewpoint of this show's organizers and broadcasters desire to eventually participate in Eurovision, when they still may have not checked their schedule and finance abilities for Eurovision participation itself - otherwise we as editors would had been able to come up with a source stating this already. So eventually in this early situation, you still don't have an actual confirmation, directly linked with Eurovision for the least. As it precisely being stated later by broadcasters when they can see clearer ahead, that is the no-rush thingy also for Wikipedia, saving arguments, and daily speculated updates work (and then removals of such material by others with edit wars), which not only causes redundant work, but also not in line with avoiding original research, not really. This is evident on the talk pages, for many years, with the general arguments of "most likely", "indicates participation", especially the case-in-point arguments of supporting keeping something, yet stating "a CONFIRMATION SOURCE should be added WHEN AVAILABLE".

Some sources also state, in regards to the DMGP, explicity: "Denmark will select their participant for the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 on March 7 in Copenhagen." Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 07:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is at least, a source which goes in direction of presenting an actual direction for Eurovision, however this is still also dependent on a connection made by these article's writers history-based knowledge of DMGP; up to now, it sent its winner to Eurovision, just as knowledgeable Wikipedia editors make this same base point. With no direct broadcaster's Eurovision-confirmation, specifically to this year, as part of the future, it's always better and policy-backed to wait. I definitely understand and agree this indicates most likely Eurovision participation, but this still circles the "likely" rather than the fixating on the "announced" point. Eventually, there can always be a case including 2020, of DMGP, Melodifestivalen and the likes becoming so popular that even if their broadcasters won't be willing/able for Eurovision in a specific year, the broadcasters will still want to hold those as independent national events - based on their own proven popularity and rating advantages. Will also make another final point - this links eventually replaced with stronger official sources, which eventually being all deleted with the one entries-list source from the official site shortly before Eurovision, so it seems really worth to at least skip these early national events sources, for all the reasons already mentioned above also by other editors (tight-policy efforts, redundant work, eventually removed from the article, edit wars... etc').
 * I believe all the arguments you're trying to make are a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, of course there's always the possibility that a long-running selection show won't be used for Eurovision. Just like how there's a possibility that the winner of a national selection will decide not to go to Eurovision. However, we don't wait for every winner to say "yes I'm going to Eurovision", and more winners have decided to not compete than times DMPG hasn't been used to select a participant (in fact, DMGP has selected every participant for Denmark). Why are you making up reasons to not go forward with this, when we have 62 years worth of history to back this up? It isn't just a couple years, it's six decades; there is absolutely no reason to assume that this one year will be different, and any assumptions without sources to back it up is pure speculation. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is how speculation works. In fact, we are speculating that a show, that has been used to select the ESC entrant for the better part of the last decade, will be used again to select the participant. Yet, this kind of speculation is completely obvious, perfectly reasonable and moreover trainspotting. A source has also since been added that says explicitly that Denmark confirmed their entry in the 2020 contest, so I don't think any further discussion is necessary. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The detailed and various reasons given - moreover - following editors talking about reasonable to assume based on the past while admitting the need for confirmation sources for the future; following other editors expressing their views to wait also in general for countries ACTUAL-WRITTEN-confirmations; and other editors already claiming (all right above) that Spain, Malta.. also use same specific shows in the past; all are clear enough for the existence of attempts to explain something general occurring every year before various countries clear confirmations (not just Denmark), as well as editors sliding further to assume the same for other countries shows (following such as Denmark, Sweden..) which often slides to more complex-comparable countries-shows arguments and unfortunately edit wars. There can't be any interest to anyone to deliberately "hold back" adding contribution to such content, which raises wonderment about your tries to make up backward "speculation violation" claims. While we disagree, and you also keep edit the article with everyone perfectly understanding your intentions as sole efforts to contribute,, then there is absolutely no reason for you to assume otherwise for intentions of editors expressing their concerns on a talk page. Further - it's also from my understanding that you and others dedicate a lot of energy for keeping finding clear sources, while removing previous ones, and the whole maintenance and update work, which is also part the focal point of myself, and others, expressing their thoughts and concerns here.
 * Regardless, I later saw that sourced a DR confirmation for Eurovision participation with the DMGP introduction; this is what I meant would be best to aim to wait for, for next such cases, thank you, Ahmedo, for adding this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.88.177 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Spain
There is no source to confirm Spain's participation. The article that is used in the article as a source only confirms that a further season of Operación Triunfo will be produced, but there is no mention of the talent show being used again as the platform to select the Spanish entry. Actually, the article mentions that the next season may premiere later than the two previous seasons (anytime between September 2019 and June 2020), so it may not be possible to create a link with the 2020 Eurovision Song Contest. ESC is not the main purpose of Operación Triunfo, in the last two years the selection for ESC was a side competition in the context of the series. Sar2de (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with this. The source given for Spain is not adequate. Yoyo 360 Wanna talk? 11:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that the text says "The following countries have expressed their provisional interest in participating in the contest or confirmed that their expected national selection process will take place:" I think Spain can remain there. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like Spain have expressed their intend in participating in 2020, they only expresed their intend to hold some national music competition, which in its 14 years of existence has only been used four times to draw the ESC representative. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have a confirmation --> TVE prepares its own Song Festival for Eurovision 2020 --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just ignore this. Apparently a fools day joke. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not look at unreliable sources {. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2019
pleas add Utrecht with location Jaarbeurs to te tabel. source: https://nos.nl/artikel/2285364-songfestival-komt-naar-nederland-een-peperdure-megaklus.html Jgo2003 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Meppel etc.
Please remove Meppel from the list and the map. The cited source is a satirical website with no truth. Meppel is a small town without any facilities to host the Contest. Also, you wrote that Meppel had not proposed a venue yet. If you would actually read sources, you would know that the source mentioned a proposed venue. But once again, it's a satirical website. Apart from citing serious sources, you should also actually read them.

Also, please add Zwolle to the map. That city is seriously interested and it's in the list, but you forgot it in the map.

The notion about frontrunners is very ambiguous and unnecessary. There are no frontrunners as every city has an equal chance. If you want to go by criteria such as venue, airport, hotels and willingness to host, you MUST include Maastricht as a frontrunner. They are very keen on hosting the Contest, and they are also the most clear about it in the media. All of the Netherlands knows that Maastricht is serious about it, whereas in the case of Amsterdam it was more of a sidenote by the mayor. Rotterdam was clearly (prematurely) interested in 2014, but this time they're not very vocal about it. But they did express interest. So that's how ambiguous this frontrunner thing is. If there's one frontrunner, it's Maastricht. But better just remove this sentence. Hhl95 06:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The front runners are outlined by the source, not us. Meppel has been removed. Zwolle was already on the map, it seems. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Meppel and Zwolle. I didn't see Zwolle on the map when I wrote it. Maybe Meppel 'blocked' it as it is very close to Zwolle. I think the source is not reliable enough for any information other than which cities are interested. As a Dutch person, I read several mistakes there (such as the population of Rotterdam, which is over 600k instead of nearly 600k, and Arnhem could perfectly rely on Schiphol airport rather than Weeze). The frontrunner remark is just out of the blue and not supported by anything. The statement would make sense if Amsterdam and Rotterdam had a favourable position with the broadcaster, but so far nothing has been said about that. The simple notion of them being the largest cities (with everything that comes with that) can't be regarded as a solid ground. So even if you got a source making this statement, I would suggest to remove it. After all, it's not a professional source either. The authors are just Eurovision fans and no professional writers or journalists or whatsoever. If we give unsupported (as in arguments, not sources) statements like this a stage on Wikipedia, we are contributing to building a hype around certain cities, and I think we should stay away from that. Hhl95 03:10 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you understood me wrong. I did not mean to say that the notion about frontrunners is out of the blue here on Wikipedia, but in the cited source. The source just mentions it without any support or explanation. That's why I'm saying that you should just remove this notion because it's not supported. You cannot write that it's because of the volume of the cities and their metro network. First of all because it doesn't say so in the source, and second because population and metro network are not even relevant for Eurovision. So just remove that sentence. It's unnecessary and it's not even true, because the broadcaster has not expressed any favour towards certain cities, so there are no frontrunners. Every city has an equal chance. Hhl95 23:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone amended the sentence to include more detail on why those two cities are the frontrunners -- but without a source. I removed the unsourced part first, then the entire sentence for less ambiguity. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you! Sorry for me thinking it was you who wrote that part. Hhl95, 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

's-Hertogenbosch in North Brabant
The city of 's-Hertogenbosch is interested in hosting the 2020 contest with the Brabanthallen as its venue

Shiruba98 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please remember to source your edits when inserting them into articles. Adding unsourced information and then posting the source to the talk page is not the most efficient way to get information in. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Participation confirmation
So the Armenian HoD have confirmed participation... on his instagram.

So, the question is how do we tackle this? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sad to realize that our journey has come to an end. Happy to have so many new friends, exciting emotions and an unforgettable experience. Our team and Srbuk worked tirelessly to bring this performance to life and we hope you enjoyed the 3 minutes of fire and passion on stage!🔥 I want to thank everyone for their support and positive words. Eurovision is as unpredictable as ever, but that’s one of the reasons we all love and watch this show. See you all next year!
 * I don't think there's any problem in using Instagram as a source. It's coming directly from the HoD. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We had a similar case with YT and someone removed the it (an interview with the Hungarian HoD). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely enough one major Eurovision blog (Wiwibloggs, Eurovoix, ESCXtra, Eurovisionworld, ...) will cover this in the coming hours/days, then it can be sourced easily. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that Eurovoix write confirmation articles (Austria and San Marino) using the same sources we have after we've added them. So, if we just add Armenia, I have a feeling that an english article will pop up soon. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that we can put Instagram posts as a source but until a more reliable source comes out Sammyham84 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add the source for now, while it should be changed as soon as an article is out. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a tweet from the official RTS Serbia Eurovision Twitter account: "The Netherlands won the @Eurovision! Congrats and big applause for all the contestants. See you in 2020!". I'm gonna add it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Enschede
Enschede is another city that is interested in hosting: https://www.tubantia.nl/enschede/vliegveld-twenthe-wil-het-songfestival-binnenhalen-we-moeten-groot-durven-denken~aba913b7/?fbclid=IwAR1veCmGNheh2lrkLWdwaW1gBK5i0NPITCsVSGp_kiyDy-f-Lxf0N19J2dk. The proposed venue is Hangar 11 at Twente Airport, with a capacity of 10.000. Hhl95 06:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added this, along with the note that the local government is not the one presenting this idea, but the director of the facility. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  11:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it! This is the case with several venues though. Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague have expressed their interest without mentioning a venue. The venues themselves expressed their individual interest in hosting the contest. In Zwolle it's also the venue that expressed its interest. Hhl95 23:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Johan Cruijff Arena not available
The Johan Cruijff Arena will not be available for the ESC in 2020, either because of the football season still running or for preparations for UEFA Euro 2020. I will delete it, please don't re-add it. Bas1411 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , you provided no source. The sources used in the article say that these are the venues the cities try to win the bid with. Either venue can be taken for one week in either case. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources needed!
People, can we please add sources to every venue, city, etc.? Because someone ‘trolled’ with Maastricht; I’ve added the correct numbers plus source. I’d like it very much if others would do the same. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I previously added a column for refs, someone revert this and put them back to the sentence right before the table. All numbers available must be drawn from those. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref columns restored. As long as we don't have a lump source that confirms every detail of the entire table, we should stick with this column to verify content per-row. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Capacity Maastricht
The capacity of MECC Maastricht is 20,000 according to its own financial director. https://www.1limburg.nl/maastricht-wil-eurovisie-songfestival-als-duncan-wint?context=latestarticles. Hhl95 23:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , feel free to amend existing information in the table, but also remember to cite a source in the article (the last column of the table is for refs). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I amended the line about Maastricht with the source. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm not an autoconfirmed user, so I cannot amend it myself ;) Hhl95 15:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Robster1983
Please stop editing this page. Wikipedia is not a newsroom nor a betting office. Wikpedia is a place that provides information in the most objective way possible. Therefore, what parties in Amsterdam think, is irrelevant and the outcome of a poll is irrelevant. The possible dates section is way too speculative and completely unnecessary. Just wait for the dates to be announced. When you add information, think of whether it will still be relevant when more is known. When the dates are announced, it is completely useless to know which were the possible dates. And when the host city is announced, it is totally unnecessary to know what the parties in Amsterdam thought of hosting. So this stuff should not be there. Remove it. Hhl95 03:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @: I’m just trying to keep the facts up to date. Why is that so hard to swallow? Nothing happened as of yet, let NL figure it all out. These are mere facts, not attacks or anything like it. Just statistics. I am sure that, over (a short amount of) time, things will become more clear. But for now, these are the facts. I’m sorry, but they just are. I do appreciate your passion about it, though. I also wanted that to be said. 🙂
 * You are not editing the article correctly. Firstly, adding possible dates is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and needs to be removed. Also, you are adding text into a table where this text does not belong. Whether the information is actually relevant or not is another story, but nothing but the city itself should be in the "City" section. The "Notes" section has no need for talking about a random 16 year old's poll or more WP:CRYSTAL violations with talking about a football team. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] }</b> 02:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but the contest needs to be held in May by the rules. Also, Eurovoix is a reliable source. But maybe we can overcome this, and find a solution? 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 02:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you're talking about because neither of those statements addressed what I was saying to you. We know the contest will be held in May, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot predict all the dates that the EBU is considering and analyze why or why not they may be chosen. Look at the histories of any other Eurovision article, that is not something we do here. I know Eurovoix is a reliable source, I use it frequently, but not everything they report needs to be included in Wikipedia. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 02:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that LWL12345 changed the article. I can live perfectly with that. Can you, too? 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 02:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @: I can understand if one will remove the poll, but the other aspects are relevant. As time will progress, they shall be removed, I’m sure of it. But this is how it stands as of now. So it should be mentioned - for now. Following June, everything shall change, I reckon. Also, please don’t be so harsh. Just like you, I’m only trying to make it a representative article. 🙂 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 01:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @: My intention is not to be harsh, but to be clear. Because Wikipedia is not a place to just play around. I have explained my view on what is relevant and not. Apparently I failed to convince you. However, @ shares my view as I read it, supporting it with the Wikipedia guidelines. I would request you to just follow them. Once again: information that is temporary, should not be added at all. Because that's no information, it's speculation. In the end Wikipedia is an encyclopedium. And encyclopedia do not speculate about future events. The possible dates section needs to be deleted. You can believe whatever you want, but let's be democratic here. It is you against Jjj1238 and me, with us having the support of the guidelines. So just from that point of view, please remove the possible dates section. Remember that Wikipedia is not a newsroom, so there is no need to share every detail and every 'current state of being'. You are not trying to keep facts up to date; you are adding information that has yet to turn into facts instead. Hhl95 04:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but I shan’t do that. made a perfect balance in all of it; removing useless information, keeping the facts in place. Those changes, for me, are not pleasant but fair. I can live with that.  「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 03:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will continue the discussion down here so it is all in one spot. The article used was never the problem, it was the content. You seem to be continuously misunderstanding what myself and are trying to tell you. Not all information is relevant enough to be included on Wikipedia. The information about the possible dates is against Wikipedia guidelines, and I am now going to remove it. Most of the information you added to the "Notes" sections of the cities is also not relevant; this includes the speculation that football matches may interfere with the Johan Cruyff Arena bid. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 04:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, and this is not meant as a personal attack, I think what you have to do, is change your mind about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about what you can live with. Wikipedia is not about you or me or whoever. Wikipedia is about the reader. We are workin together to provide the reader with the information he/she needs and with information that is useful. This means that you have to set your ego aside. There does not have to be a contribution from you to this page at all costs if that contribution does not have any additional value. I'm not an autoconfirmed user, so I cannot even contribute to this page. But I don't care, because it's not about me. And I think that's the position you should take. Wikipedia is also not about balance. That's why we have guidelines. There can be a balance in your opinion right now, but the possible dates are still going against the guidelines. So that's a disbalance, which needs to be removed. Once again: it's not about you, it's about the reader. And the reader does not need this kind of speculative and temporary information. Hhl95 06:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, things matter. However, you felt it necessary to do it your way, and I obey by it. However, I still felt rather attacked by you and <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b>] I can only assume you both don’t want to hurt me nor the article, so again: I obey. But you both could be more diplomatic. [[User:Robster1983| 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 00:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Page fully protected for 1 month
Per a request at WP:RFPP, the continuing edit war here has resulted in this article being fully protected for one month. During that time, only admins can edit the page. This talk page is not protected, and the appropriate place to iron out the differences. Should you not be able to come to agreement on this talk page, please take this issue to WP:ANEW. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully support this. A month can do everyone some good, and edit requests can still be made.BabbaQ (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a full protection for a month is ridiculous. While I can see a 24 hour protection, or a 48 hour protection at most, as being a useful tool to cool down the warring parties in the hopes that they (and the community at large) will reach a consensus, I think a full protection for a month is unreasonable. Developments for the contest will happen in this month, during which editors will not be able to update the page. Please unprotect the article with a warning to the warring editors not to continue to engage in edit wars. Banana Republic (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Until the reason that triggered the edit war is resolved a higher level of protection is warranted in this case. Both are extended-confirmed users so ECP will do nothing in this case. If the reason that lead to the edit warring can be resolved quickly then the article can revert back to its previous protection level before the 1 month full protection is over. In the meantime please feel free to improve the article by submitting edit requests.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    06:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if only two editors are involved in the edit war, than the proper course of action should be to block the two editors if they continue the edit war after being warned, rather than page protection. It seems that page protection should be the course of action when the edit war involves more than just two editors. Banana Republic (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well protecting pages and blocking users is a difficult decision in a situation like this both Dismar01 and Lordtobi are longstanding editors and contribute to the project in a lot of good ways outside of Eurovision articles blocking them would have only been a short term fix but the issue that lead to the block would never be resolved. I have been a lurker at WP:RFPP for a long time and I also work in other areas of the wiki such as pending changes, new page patrol and answering edit requests for semi and extended confirmed pages so over time I've come to an understanding on how admins generally take to protecting and blocking. If I was an admin I would have made the same call just as had done. My understanding is blocking should be a last resort option when it is clear the editors will not work out differences. This also causes other editors to this article like you and me to take a look at the issue that caused full protection and help reach a consensus on the matter. The sooner we can achieve consensus the sooner we can get the protection level lowered to say pending changes protection due to the random spats of vandalism that occurred while they were edit warring.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    09:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of constructive edits to this page have been by non-admins. In the two days since the protection, the information on this page has not been edited even once. It's not ideal to have to submit edit requests when I can count the number of admins who regularly edit this page on one hand. <b style="color: #2e96ff;">LexPro4</b> (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but the full protect edit request queue is rarely back-logged and is taken care of the quickest of all edit request queues. Until we as editors can resolve the issue that triggered the full protection and the recent new dispute that just happened I would be against lifting full protection at this time as some editors still haven't learned the concept of discuss not revert.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    14:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I-... wasn't it easier to block the two edit-warring users? Unless an admin is willing to update the page, there's no point in protecting it just because of two users' disruptive behavior.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  19:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A full protection was an extremely poor decision, especially considering only two of the users were involved in the dispute. Block them, and allow the page to continue how it was. There is information continuously coming out that needs to be updated on the page, but none of it is happening because very few active editors on this article have admin privileges. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 19:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to fully support the Protection made by . It did not come from nowhere and is justified, the article will likely be protected for the full month. And edit requests can be made quite easily. I see this as a good and strong warning for everyone to keep childish bickering off the main ESC 2020 article.BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Even I do agree about the page being fully protected for sometime to calm down an edit war but I believe that we need to have the page level brought down or blocking the ones involved with the edit war instead because since the full protection nothing has been done on the page including the name of the Slovak broadcaster and Georgia participation in the Article Sammyham84 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I repeat what I said above in that 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. The others were semi-protection. I will assume good faith and unprotect the page.  However ... the issue of who is, or is not, acting in good faith, might be more complicated than a simple block or unblock.  Should the issue resume upon unblock, please take the issue directly to  WP:ANI where the situation can be aired more fully. — Maile  (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only correct thing to do would be to give an ultimatum to the two users involved in the edit warring to ensure it doesn't resume.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  20:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward
Thank you to. I am expecting no additional edit warring given that the editor involved in the editor war has declared the edit war to have been resolved. Banana Republic (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor whose edit warring had triggered the page protection,, has been blocked for 24 hours, and decided to withdraw from the English Wikipedia. Since the editor has twice refused my comments on their talk page (here and here), I just wanted to say that if they decide to change their mind (once the block expires), their contributions would be welcome, but that's not a guarantee that the contributions would be accepted. Of course, edit warring is never acceptable, and it is especially burdensome when it causes a page to become protected such that no editor can edit it. Banana Republic (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna close and archive this discussion soon because this is starting to become a situation of beating a dead horse so to speak. However I will say this since is currently unable to defend themselves. Over the past year or so I've worked with Dimsar01 in relation to Eurovision articles here at English Wikipedia and overall I find Dimsar01's contributions very valuable to the project and accepted. Yes Dimsar01 and I have butted heads over several issues but in the end we were able to discuss those issues and work through them for the better. No one person can determine if another's contributions would be accepted or not. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and without the editors there would be no Wikipedia in any language. I agree edit warring by anyone is never acceptable and there were many other ways this situation could have been handled. However I hope that when Dimsar01's block is over and if they decide to come back to English Wikipedia they will handle any conflicts or issues differently than they have in the past. Now that the page is unprotected please let's move on, continue to find solutions to the current discussions at hand and not keep bringing up 1 single editor's faults.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    03:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2019
In the Bidding phase and host city selection section remove from the table the following cities: Breda, Enschede and The Hague (remove the whole row). In addition, remove the text from the Notes column in the "'s-Hertogenbosch" row and replace it with the em dash (—). Finally, remove the previously-mentioned three cities from the Location map many template in the section. The following source add it as a reference in the "City" column header. Source: https://eurovoix.com/2019/06/03/eurovision20-seven-cities-confirmed-as-bidding-to-host-the-eurovision-song-contest/ —<b style="color: #18b26f;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #282aaf;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 10:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All three cities you want removed are still actively bidding. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dimsar, do not remove others comments.BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  I'm proactively closing this as someone who regularly works with extended-confirmed and semi protected edit requests this now requires a consensus especially in light of recent events. If this was an ecp or semi request I would decline it outright because of this.  anyone can reply to an edit request if they feel the need to do so if it is for the benefit of the article. Please review WP:ER and WP:TALK.     Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    14:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the sources provided by I would recommend removing only Enschede from the table and map and keep Breda and The Hague. My reasoning for this is the source provided by Dimsar01 was published on June 3rd while in the sources provided by Lordtobi The Hauge and Breda officially applied to host were published on June 4th and June 5th respectively. I have provided sandbox example of Enschede removed and with the three sources inserted into the table as an example.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    14:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to keep the list intact, since the text says that these are the cities that expressed interest in bidding, and not the cities that are actually bidding. As long as the bidding phase is running, I think it's good to keep the list this way, so we can wait and see which of these cities are actually going to bid. When the bidding phase is over, I think it's good to adjust the list to show the cities that actually created a bid. Then that list could stay that way until the actual host city is announced. Hhl95 23:38, 9 June 2019

Australia
The current source confirms that Australia is granted five years of participation in the contest. It does not, however, confirm that SBS will use that privilege next year. Is there a better source available? Should we (re)move the entry? Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 18:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be removed. It relies on the assumption that they will participate, not any actual confirmation from a source. <b style="color: #2e96ff;">LexPro4</b> (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I found a source that mentions that Australia confirmed their participation So I am going to re add it Sammyham84 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not what the source is saying. The only line that comes close is, and it does not remark whether SBS intends to take part in all five years they have been granted participation in.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Israel participation confirmed
Israel has confirmed their participation for 2020

2A00:23C6:18C:B500:9D74:1CC9:97D:9196 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, I saw this too. Israel is now back in. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)