Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020/Archive 3

RfC regarding the inclusion of Catalonia
Catalonia is part of Spain, so the autonomous community taking part in the Eurovision Song Contest (2020) is unlikely and probably not feasible due the European Broadcasting Union's rules for entering the contest. However, Catalonia's CCMA and TV3 have aspirations to join similar to other, fully-fledged countries, which has been reported on frequently in the past. This leaves the question, should Catalonia be included in our list of potential candidate broadcasters? This is an RfC, please reply with either Include or Exclude, coupled with an explanation for the stance provided. As long as this discussion is open, Catalonia should not be removed from the list to avoid edit warring. 93.159.251.2 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude. For the following reasons:
 * Catalonia is no country by scientifical standards, as it lacks sovereignty since it is still under the authority of the Spanish government.
 * Catalonia is no country by legal standards, as it is not mentioned as such in any relevant legal rulings. Instead, it is an autonomous province of Spain.
 * Catalonia is no country by Wikipedia standards, as it is not mentioned as a country and does not fit the definition.
 * Catalonia is not able to take part in the Eurovision Song Contest by the current rules even after admission to the EBU, since RTVE represents all of Spain. This is not said explicitly, but follows from the EBU decision on Scotland, which can not participate since the BBC represents all of the United Kingdom. So it is not relevant to mention Catalonia.
 * Apart from the list of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, we never considered the participation of other sub-national entities on the pages dedicated to each individual edition of the ESC, such as this one for 2020. Entities that could have been covered are the countries of the United Kingdom, the Bundesländer of Germany and the Gewesten of Belgium. They all have their own broadcasters within the EBU. So for reasons of consistency, we should not cover Catalonia either.
 * Our job for this page is to cover the Eurovision Song Contest 2020. Cases of potential membership are ideally covered on the European Broadcasting Union page, especially when it is not about an actual country that could actually join the Contest in 2020.
 * Just for the confusion, it is already the right choice not to include Catalonia.
 * It is only justified to cover Catalonia in the following cases:
 * Catalonia gained independence from Spain.
 * The EBU changed its stance and/or rules so that sub-national entities are allowed to participate.
 * Under all other circumstances it is irrelevant and should not be covered. No matter how often sources are covering it. We decide what we cover on Wikipedia. Hhl95 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I don't know why this is a discussion. Catalonia absolutely should be included because they have made statements regarding EBU membership and subsequent participation. It has nothing to do with their actual status. If Spain were to withdraw from a Eurovision event and FORTA does receive EBU membership, Catalonia can participate. Your points do not make any sense when taking that into account. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You should be replying to the RfC with your own arguments, not to my arguments. We have the other section for that. Hhl95 23:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC+2)


 * Exclude
 * The section on Catalonia is mainly based on hypotheticals. If Spain withdraws, Catalonia could participate if FORTA was a member of the EBU. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong include
 * Catalonia's political status has nothing to do with whether it should be included or not.
 * Catalonia's broadcaster has made statements regarding EBU membership and Eurovision participation.
 * Kosovo is not recognized by a multitude of nations and cannot apply for membership under current EBU rules but they are still included because of the statements made by the broadcaster, Catalonia should be no different.
 * Catalonia is not barred from participating by any means as long as Spain does not compete.
 * If FORTA is accepted as an EBU member, Catalonia can compete anytime Spain does not.
 * If this were Wales or Scotland I bet we would not be having this discussion; Catalonia's case is nearly identical.
 * Apologies to Hhl95. I did not see this was a RfC and thought they were simply creating a section with their own comments. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude: I had commented a few months back about my preference to not include Catalonia because I don't believe rumors and hypotheticals belong on Wikipedia, whether they're sourced or not. My preference is that we only include the following scenarios: confirmed participation, will decide by x date, no word from a previous year's broadcaster, and will not participate. I think that listing entities that have to complete an unclear series of hoops to even be eligible is WP:FANCRUFT and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Just because there is information out there about a subject or event, doesn't mean it meets the threshold to be added to Wikipedia. Grk1011 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude: Basically for the reasons stated above by other users. "Catalonia" is not a country by any means, though certain politicians tend to toss the ball around on the subject for political reasons. There's no recognition of "Catalonia" as a country or nationality anywhere except within Spain, which grants it as a distinct "nationality" but which holds no value outside of Spanish territory. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in no way comparable to the cases of any of Spain's regions, for the sub-divisions of the United Kingdom are widely recognized as "countries."
 * The whole issue is speculative and altogether irrelevant. Even if the EBU were to grant permission to the FORTA members, there's no reason for Catalonia to appear as the sole "possibility," instead of Madrid, Andalusia or Galicia, when all of these and more would be just as likely to enter the contest. In addition to that, Spain has an uninterrupted participation record since its debut in 1961; when Spain announces a withdrawal, then that might make this alternative an actual possibility. Until then, Spain's confirmed participation is enough to neutral out this issue's entire relevance; even if the FORTA members were admitted, they would not be eligible to enter this contest.
 * Please do not allow the international Wikipedias to fall pray to subjective points of view that appeal to particular nationalistic —and ethically questionable— ideologies. The Catalan language Wikipedia has been shamelessly used systematically to promote "information" to a particular reader for years, and we're seeing an alarming amount of that spilling over to other Wikipedias. This larger issue may need to be addressed in the near future because Wikipedia should not be used to bypass neutrality and factual information in order to serve certain mindsets. Thank you. T.W. (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude: Following last week's Kosovo debacle, I had some time to think about this. Given that it is an essential requirement for a country to be in the ITU, Council of Europe, and so forth to join the EBU, Catalonia would never be able to get into these institutions outside of Spain, and thus not become a full EBU member. FORTA/TV3, should they be accepted into the EBU, could only represent Spain if RTVE ever chose not to (which I'll also doubt). This is also not represented in sources; the sentence presented in the article—"[...] approval would allow TV3 to debut in the 2020 contest."— is backed up by the source saying "If full membership of the EBU is approved, the broadcaster is hoping to debut in the Eurovision Song Contest in 2020.", two quite different things. While similar on a broadcaster-level discussion, this is different from Scotland/Wales/Kosovo when seen geopolitically, as each of these is a country ("country" is loosely defined, but let's take the common understanding of "country" into mind for this one), whereas Catalonia is not, it is defined as an autonomous community. Scotland and Wales currently also cannot compete in big-boy Eurovision because only independent nations can take part in that one (the United Kingdom is the nation that encompasses the countries of England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales), so there is no case for Catalonia either, really. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question: Should the result of this discussion be echoed on List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the name of that article speaks for itself: List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. Catalonia is an "autonomous community", not a country. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  16:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to say yes, but then I remembered we would simply have to cover all Spanish provinces, since they are in an equal position here. So, no. Hhl95 19:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC+2)

EBU rejected CCRTV's bid Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the EBU's statement sums up the problem perfectly:
 * I would be led to be believe that the same applies the Faroe Islands, who can apparently become an EBU member, but likely cannot participate in the ESC due to the nation state, the Kingdom of Denmark, already being represented. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be led to be believe that the same applies the Faroe Islands, who can apparently become an EBU member, but likely cannot participate in the ESC due to the nation state, the Kingdom of Denmark, already being represented. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

How long is the RfC staying open? Hhl95 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I think it has run its course and consensus has been reached. Let me close it. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  09:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:DTS
Am I crazy or is there something wrong with Template:Date table sorting in the participants table? It is showing me simply "TBD" and then the source, with no date, but when I go in to edit the table, the DTS template is there still, just not working. I have tried to fix it by changing the template name to its full name "Date table sorting", changing the date format to "year|month|day", and everything else I could think of, but the template is still not showing up for me. Is there something wrong with my display, or is this something that is happening for others as well? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , the template was needlessly moved around today which caused temporary problems. Affected pages should work now, but to mane sure, I purged the page's cache. Could you check again whether it works? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is working now. Thank god, I thought I was going crazy. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Latest update host city
NOS just published that three of the five remaining cities are out of the race now. So the current situation is now that only two cities still have the chance to host. Unfortunately, NOS does not disclose which cities are out and which remain, so I'm not sure if and how we can cover this. Source: https://nos.nl/artikel/2293204-drie-steden-afgevallen-in-strijd-om-songfestival.html Hhl95 19:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * The article suggests that they will announce this next week ("Vanaf volgende week ...", "From next week on ..."), we can wait and see. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * According to Eurovoix Utrecht and s-Hertogenbosch are out the 2 city Sammyham84 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Eurovoix source says that it’s unlikely Den Bosch and Utrecht are still in but it doesn’t say that they’re out of the running to host. NOS will reveal the two shortlisted cities next week so until then, we wait.  ○ [ Thalaja  ] ○  03:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is indeed quite a bit of punditry going on, not just on Eurovoix but also in a lot of Dutch media outlets. It's all speculation, though, and Wikipedia is not in the speculation business. That being said, I do expect the shortlist to surface somewhere, or be pieced together by clever journalists. But until such list appears, we need to keep all five cities in the running. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  19:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has now been made official that Arnhem, Den Bosch and Utrecht are out. The article has been updated. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn cities
As mentioned here the cities we have as "withdrawn" (Amsterdam, Breda, Leeuwarden and The Hague) never actually submitted a candidacy and they just "showed interest" on hosting the contest. So I'm not sure if we should have them on the table or the map as they never were officialy candidate cities. What do you think? —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 15:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, they informed NPO & co. of their propose candidacy and thus should have received the requirements papers. IMO, though, they should be removed from the table and (if necessary) the map. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree and maybe we should add them on the paragraph below stating that they showed interest but never submitted a bid book. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 15:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and rewrote the section, including the requested changes. Feel free to copyedit. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Greece
https://wiwibloggs.com/2019/07/22/greece-should-stefania-liberakakis-sing-at-eurovision-2020-in-the-netherlands/240804/ Esc Steven (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that means they confirmed their ....... in eurovision 2020? Esc Steven (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is an opinion piece that suggests a specific singer should be chose for Greece because she was born in the Netherlands. It is neither an official broadcaster statement nor any sort of confirmation for participation. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The title for bids

 * I support the general-action title "Bidding phase", rooted over the years across roughly 15 articles, and in most cases even after "Venue" section focusing on the chosen venue details, and specifically for a section focusing on venues details and conditions to fulfill to host the key-televised show, moreover as highlighting the official bidding venues in a table presentation. "Bidding phase" anyway addresses and includes the action of venues bidding via their mayors and other bodies. I didn't give it much thought for the last 3-years articles as they still included "Bidding phase" alongside "and host city selection". This addition is stable here – for months, in relation to being changed the last days to solely "host city selection" (about a week ago I still saw the previous). I will change to "Bidding phase" if there are no contrary views the next days. If there are, it should then be changed in the meantime to the stable (and also compromising one) until a decision is reached, which also effect previous articles.
 * I will explain in the meantime my view that "Host city selection" doesn't target and diverts from the venues being the key factor. Even some previous articles, based on and initially pointing mayor's lobbying, naturally thereafter detail about the venues and the most strict conditions required from those while only slightly touching other surroundings for sided-parties and accommodations across the city which are more flexible in their demand and most cities can manage open spaces and accommodations (also outside of city proper). I also give an exceptional example of Malmo 2013 which I was enthusiastic to contribute back then and one of the main people working on it, as it was indeed chosen for its relatively small size so that the whole city will be dedicated to the contest - as a city-proper key-factor, and for its location and connection to Denmark with Orsund bridge, for Danish fans' easy access and use of the bridge as an artistic medium within the contest's program. And even there there is a "Bidding phase" title for the more detailed venues part. Also, for cities proposing more than one venue, while their venues are individually examined, and if the city has some venues ruled out it will still be in the race until its last proposed venue is out. There are also cases of municipalities in general unable to host, but most cases are dependent on each individual venue. אומנות (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The present title is a reduction of the previous amalgam, "Bidding phase and host city selection", which appeared to redundantly include the roughly same thing twice. If you think that there is a better way of representing the article title, and it is justified given your explanation, I think you can just be bold and change it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured it was removed for seeming redundant, and agree, but also why I didn't want to override both the newer thought-of title and the preceding stable version. As it also touches across Eurovision articles formatting I thought it's just best to first explain the general situation with examples here, and instead of any potential unclear edit summary and straight change on my part, and by that avoiding any potential cycle of misunderstandings and further reverts. If there is already your comment understanding my rational, I will change it. אומנות (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Capacity of MECC Maastricht
It seems really weird to me that the capacity is now said to be 20,000 when even on the official website of this venue, here, it said it is now 3,000 and will be 5,000 after renovation (which is exactly what was written on the page just a few days ago). Yoyo 360 Wanna talk? 15:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , in an interview with the radio station of Limburg, the commercial director of the venue, Frank Mimpen, states that "no fewer than 20,000 people fit in the MECC". The current secondary source used for this also confirms this number. On the other hand, this source says their largest hall has a capacity of 5,000. I'm not entirely sure which hall the primary source is talking about, but appears to be taken out of context. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your doubt. But if their own director is convinced that they can host it, then it must be possible to host more than 5,000 people. There is also a practical/historical example: every year, André Rieu holds concert series on the Vrijthof, the main square in Maastricht. Each individual concert is attended by around 11,000 people. In 2010, the outside temperature was so high, that there were concerns about the asphalt becoming too hot and therefore also dangerous for the audience. Rieu then decided to move his concert to the MECC. So despite the website of the venue, it has hosted over 10,000 people before, including a huge stage, and so we can be sure that they can do it this time again. The building has not become smaller. Now 20,000 is still quite a gap with 11,000. This could be explained by the fact that with Rieu's concerts, everyone has a chair. The number of 20,000 is probably based on everyone standing. With Eurovision, there is usually a floor area with people standing and grandstands with seating around it. So my guess for the capacity in a usual Eurovision setting would be 15,000-18,000. And for even more evidence: taking into account that there are 11,000 people on chairs(!) on the Vrijthof for Rieu's concerts, you can see on satellite images on Google Maps that the halls of the MECC, though a bit different in shape, have a similar floor area to the Vrijthof. Bearing in mind that with Eurovision, there will also be a lot of people standing, you can do the math. Hhl95 01:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , while I cannot confirm or disprove any statements you made, I'd like to leave original research as much out of this as possible. Some sources say that the MECC is split into four main halls, the largest of which holds 5k people. Maybe the walls can be folded to create a larger hall? Who knows. Today, the bidding venues received the requirements they need to meet. If they don't, they'll simply drop out (which will most likely oust Leuwarden).  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 00:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand. I very well know that this is the talk page and my intention is not to add such information to the actual page. I just wanted to take away any doubt that might exist around this topic. I have been in the MECC in person some years ago, but can't remember whether they had folding walls or not. But even without folding walls, I think, based on the floor area, that they have a hall with enough capacity. Question is what the number of 5,000 is based on. Standing people, sitting people, and if sitting, how much room between the seats? Etc. But what I think is not very important. Indeed we will see which cities may drop out. Hhl95 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just leaving this here: -- Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is my first time on Wikipedia with an account, so if I make a mistake please explain what I did wrong. The Volkskrant published an interview with the mayor of Maastricht yesterday concerning the eurovision bid. The reporter describes what she sees on the page 'artist impressions van het congrescentrum Mecc met 10.300 zit- en 2.500 staanplaatsen', artist impressiions of the congresscentre MECC with space for 10.300 seating and 2.500 standing'. So, the NPO would certainly have the same figures. Furthermore, Andre Rieu is holding a 'Christmas in my home town' show at the MECC, in the biggest hall with a capacity of 12.000 , he said so in the video which is dutch ofcourse. P.S. I do not have any edit abilities yet. ~TRSTVL (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the pointers, they back up what has been stated before and could be incorporated into the article should further clarification be needed. For now, we should assume that Maastricht is actually able to host the contest and is not trying to bid empty-handed, as they have repeatedly stated that they can indeed host such an event. P.S.: Regarding your editing abilities, this article is semi-protected, so new users and unregistered editors cannot edit the article. You can do so once you reach 'autoconfirmed' level, you can learn more about that at WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Just in from the NOS. The capacity of both Ahoy and MECC are equal, 11.000-12.000. The free height of the MECC is just over 16 meters and Ahoy is about 23 meters. The lowered capacity has a few reasons. The NPO requires more space around the ramps for easy access, this was not taken into account by the MECC bid. For Ahoy they seem to prefer to have the greenroom inside the concert hall, lowering the capacity of the floor. This is taken from the reactions of the directors of the venues in the two videos. TRSTVL (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is perfect, thanks. I included it in the table. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should include that in the table. Capacity is by defintion the potential, and not the real situation. If an event with 5000 spectators is held in the MECC or Ahoy, it doesn't mean its capacity decreases to 5000. Including this is also not in line with the capacities of the eliminated candidate cities, because we don't know what their capacity specifically for Eurovision would be. It's just the maximum capacity of the building, and we should maintain that for Ahoy and MECC as well. Hhl95 23:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC+2)

Why is the capacity important? I think it should be omitted. It's just one additional factor, one of several that comes into play when choosing a venue. Additionally, as Hh195 has stated, the actual capacity of the venue is sometimes irrelevant to the Contest due to how they would set it up. Grk1011 (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. I didn't exactly think of omitting capacity completely, but it does make sense. Because we could as well include height of the roof, parking spaces and whatever, the list is endless. On the one hand, for many venues, there is no information on the capacity for ESC specifically, while on the other hand, the maximum capacity doesn't really say anything. Also if a venue seems to be too small, I think we just have to trust the venue that they have a plan to cope with that. If a venue/city is interested in, or actually bidding for hosting the Contest, we need to trust that they found a way to fulfill the criteria, including the capacity one. Hhl95 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I think we should remove it then. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone objects before moving forward with the change. Grk1011 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it should also be removed for all the other years then. Hhl95 02:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * Yes, it should be at least somewhat uniform. Ideally, a project-wide Manual of Style-esque guide could be set up. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkey/Liechtenstein
Why are we mentioning Turkey with information from 2018, whereas Liechtenstein is not mentioned anywhere, while we could simply do the same for them? I'd say either remove Turkey, or include Liechtenstein (in its respective section of course). Hhl95 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * You're right, Turkey does not belong here as the information was published in the lead-up to the 2019 contest, not this one. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Following this, wouldn't it be better to change 'countries that participated in 2019, but no announcement about 2020' to 'countries that participated in the past, but no announcement about 2020' and include Turkey and Morocco there? Hhl95 03:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I'd honestly prefer there be no speculative sections and only include countries that have actually confirmed their participation for next year. If we include countries that have participated at any time in the past, I think we are hinting at the possibility that their return is something that's on the table, which is not something covered by any of the given sources. Grk1011 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are pleaing for a removal of the other countries as well? Hhl95 19:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * Yes, but I don't have the energy for that discussion right now. For the question that was asked regarding Turkey and Liechtenstein, I believe the less controversial answer is to not include them. Grk1011 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just been thinking about this again, and I don't think we would hint at a possible return. Our current idea is that countries are 'passive' until they actually return. However, every broadcaster has to actively confirm their (non-)participation to the EBU every year. So every country is considering participation every year again, even Morocco, Luxembourg and Turkey, and even Algeria, Libya, Lebanon and whatsoever. But I wouldn't include the latter since they never participated anyways, but I think it would make sense to change the section to 'countries that participated in the past, but no announcement for 2020', because those countries have shown interest in participation at least once, and as I explained, they actively have to consider participation every year again. It's not too big of a deal for me, but I just think this would be the most 'correct' way to do this. Hhl95 00:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I feel like that sets up the expectation that every broadcaster is "in" and has to make some sort of announcement if they're not. Including every country that could theoretically participate makes it seem like there are active internal discussions and participating is a possibility. In reality, it might not even be on their radar because they historically don't care about the contest or even talk about it at the office. There are always a few countries that show up on the maybe list, they make no mention of the contest, the EBU releases the final list, and then we just remove them all is if nothing happened. For an encyclopedia, that bothers me. Grk1011 (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Grk1011 here, and אומנות's comment furhter down. Countries should not be listed here just because they participated in the past (including the previous contest), rather only if there has been any development on a country's situation just prior to that contest. This also includes where a country has specifically confirmed that they would not take part. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hungary
According to Wiwibloggs Hungary has confirmed their participation. they even used the Broadcaster Facebook as a source I do not see why We keep changing it to so far not confirmed Sammyham84 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Now my Hungarian is worse than non-existent, so I couldn't read that Facebook post all the way through. But it appears that said social media posting confirms that the Hungarian broadcaster is considering changing the national selection format. However, ESC articles use as an informal guideline the idea that a confirmation of the national selection (especially when that has taken a life of its own) does not constitute proof of participating in that year's Eurovision Song Contest (see the paragraph on Malta, for example). Therefore, the Wiwibloggs source does not support the statement that Hungary will definitely participate in ESC 2020. I'm sorry.  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  09:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I completely understand about the statement and will wait until there is an official statement about participation Sammyham84 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Per Melodifestivalen, MGP, and others, Wikipedia does not actually follow this idea that "a confirmation of the national selection does not constitute proof of participating in that year's Eurovision Song Contest". We do not take this as a confirmation when the national final was not created specifically for Eurovision --- A Dal was. NFs like The X Factor Malta and Festivali i Këngës have uses outside of Eurovision, which is why they shouldn't be used for Eurovision participation, but competitions like A Dal (and Melodifestivalen, MGP, Eesti Laul, etc.) are Eurovision-specific events that were created specifically for Eurovision and have never been used for something else, so they are used as confirmation. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 16:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I stand partially corrected on the point of national selections. But I say to after reviewing the source once more, the Wiwibloggs blog post seems to say that the Hungarian broadcaster's Facebook profile is merely gathering ideas for a possible next A Dal. Although that confirms they are very seriously considering giving it another go, it's not a confirmation of A Dal 2020 per se. But perhaps somebody with a better grasp of the Hungarian language than yours truly is able to decipher a bit more. —♦♦  AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean but I check the other participating countries and saw that Romania has the same case as Hungary here is the source Sammyham84 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I've removed Romania for now.  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  08:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We should consider putting hard-set rules in place to avoid future discrepancies. For example, "countries should only be included if they stated precisely that they plan to take part in the contest, or if the next edition of the event that has the sole purpose of selecting a country's Eurovision entrant is scheduled to take place". Examples for the latter part include Denmark's DMGP, Norway's MGP, Sweden's Melfest, Germany's "Unser Song für ...", etc. This format would state roughly what we have been following previously, but every addition could be reviewed through this process. I'll quickly soft-apply this, which will see Belarus move out and Armenia move into the table. This is because, as per the sources provided, Belarus was only considering changes to its selection format, not confirming that they would do so or have any selection format at all. Meanwhile, Armenia has its national final "Towards Eurovision" scheduled; "Towards Eurovision", as the name suggests, has the sole purpose of Eurovision entrant selection. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also not very keen on using Twitter as a source for Serbia's participation; "see you next year" is rather vague. I won't remove it but I do think that it should be discussed at a given time. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think such a Twitter uttering is sufficient to include a country as provisionally parttaking. Right now, the principle that we are using here, is that countries do not participate unless they confirm it. Of course, strictly, that is right. However, the practice for basically all active countries is that they do participate unless they have a serious reason not to. A Twitter utterance as the one from Serbia just confirms this practice. So I'm not saying that we should just put all countries in the list and remove the ones that withdraw, but I think the practice of 'participating, unless' means that a normally weak source can show enough confidence for participation to include it in the list. Hhl95 02:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC+2)


 * Is there a better source for Armenia and the alleged 2020 series of Depi Evratesil? The source given has the headline "Armenia confirms national selection for 2020" — note their own quotation marks, suggesting uncertainty — and the article uses the vague language "seems to confirm". Their reference given is an unverified Facebook page which looks more like a fan page than something run by the broadcaster. Mentions of "Depi Evratesil 2020" on this page look like a fantasy Armenian national final, similar to one they ran for "Depi Evratesil 2019". Contrast with the verified Armenia in Eurovision page (run by the broadcaster), where the current focus is on Junior Eurovision 2019 and no mention of a Depi Evratesil 2020 has been made. DivingSpicy (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Per Wiwibloggs: "Broadcaster AMPTV has not yet confirmed its participation in Eurovision 2020. An unofficial fan page for former national final show Depi Evratesil hinted at a return to the national final format, however this also has not been confirmed by the broadcaster." Yes, Armenia should go off the table. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. And I agree with you on Serbia. I've removed that country from the list. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  08:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to share and express my take, based on cases over the years; more so recent tricky-misleading publishes, which puts me in strong favor of sticking to sources of authors writing straight forward about Eurovision participation; inclusive of publishes about the few shows which always used in the past (to-date is past) to send an entry, and shows bearing titles referencing Eurovision – Israel and Armenia cases. And when there are of course the classic-general sources for broadcaster and country as "confirms participation" to use.

That enables simplification of technically relying on quoting the authors without making an ounce of editorial judgment or assumption; for an info bound to pop-up for the latest 2 months prior to the event. Even authors statements from Eurovision fan-sites are still misleading sometimes, so for the least I see it as where we can base from the get go on quoting them, and on this merits avoid sources just describing national shows without mentioning the upcoming Eurovision, or announcing a show where Eurovision participation-referencing is only expressed in the show's title and not by the author.

This will create so much benefit: Dramatically narrow the cases of moving countries back and forth from "Other countries" to "Provisional participants", eliminate the unfortunate confusion and antagonism of other users placing under "provisional" for further shows that used to sometime select or just in recent years and get reverted. Overall, will avoid going down to resolutions of complex status comparisons, and clashing editorial judgments, in the face of future bound-to-be solid info. Few examples I want to address to take into account: Even if someone disagrees with some of my views and further solutions, you can see for yourselves the far from ideal current situation, and with that I hope that my concern, unfortunate feel from this situation, and detailing the confusions and comparisons – to stress my points - is clear enough to understand where me (and some others) are coming from and why I feel the need to comment on this and bring further change.
 * Later sources act as replacement for "provisional participants" – with users-edit-summary statement: "better source"; so in retrospective the previous source simply didn't bear a good enough content and presentation-way to rely on. It's precisely because the replacements have direct authors quotation for a national show sending used for the upcoming Eurovision and/or Eurovision participation on the plethora of general sources for a broadcaster and countries situation.
 * Sweden was initially placed under "provisional" with a source stating a radio show plan to have its own contest from which it will send 2 entries to Melodifestivalen; no actual Melodi confirmation, let alone no Eurovision reference, which creates double 2nd level of assumption and was also later placed by :"better source". Also – Sweden's first participation in 1958 occurred before Melodifestivalen. That is another way to look at a country which still took part in Eurovision regardless of its implemented selection afterwards, as another angle for reflection it can repeat in the future regardless of the national event. We don't know.
 * Armenia, with its Eurovision dedicated and name-bearing title (and after older general moves and edit wars), appeared in a source where the authors said "probably", "seem to participate in Eurovision". This case vividly shows that even authors who contact themselves with a national show organizers or rely on someone else contacting, admit to not be sure in regards to Eurovision. This is again equal to those other sources detailing about a show without the author claiming they will participate in Eurovision. So for me the conclusion is that we as editors shouldn't present it as "provisional participation" either.
 * The biggest case in point – for a Eurovision-made-dedicated-named-after show: Israel earlier source for "Next Star for Eurovision" which was named as such in 2014 with a whole new format and consistent for choosing representative for Eurovision through to 2019 (seperated and reinvented from the original and Eurovision-less named "Next Star"''). Israeli broadcaster hurried to announce they don't confirm yet for 2020, in spite of that announcement for the new edition called: "Next Star for Eurovision". Even if the initial source for Israel announced Eurovision participation, that's fine, but that goes further to show why it's better to narrow the use for the least for authors stating that, instead of broaden editorial judgment to tangle around few to-date dedicated selections.
 * Another point I wanna touch - "Other countries" (with "Active"/"Non active") exist to report developments, thus also temporarily further valuable for the reader; it serves him better by showing details while "Provisional participants" only pin-points the country. That easily uses and can be inclusive for any kind of solely-national show source, detailed, presented, for the reader's judgment.
 * The situation with Israel (also Montenegro) caused another user taking a source with additional 5 countries (including Israel and Montenegro) from which he took just the 3 for "provisional" while leaving those 2 under "Other countries", with an edit-summary confessing "this seems best to do for now", as for splitting the source info according to going-down-to resolution good faith attempt.
 * Portugal – Source for 2 composers chosen for "Festival de Cancao"; another very initial detail. The mention for Eurovision seems to be made by the authors that "this shows Portugal's interest in Eurovision 2020". I was about to move Portugal until I saw specific sentence within the source. Yet the Festival was also held 3 times when Portugal didn't participate in Eurovision, something which again is based on history-knowledge which many others may not have and could also snick from knowledge or memory of the authors here. Even this would have much more benefit appearing and get detailed under "Other countries". In any case I showcase this to stress how even authors statements can be tricky as detached, let alone sources of national shows without authors statements for the upcoming Eurovision.
 * Agree on "see you next year" twits. Especially per with their edit summary of just a "greeting" for removing Serbia; few years ago a same discussion occurred in regards to UK twitting this same text right after a contest, where I also commented it's like telling another "see you around" without a plan or even intention to follow through. And after all, this phrase also doesn't specify "Eurovision" or "Participation" in its vocabulary, as what I addressed in regards to other cases as a general rule of thumb above.
 * Also agree with user Grk1101 that there is no point listing active countries from previous year. If there is no info on them – not listing means just that. Listing them insinuates yet another form of assumption for participation based on what happened "to-date".

אומנות (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed changes seem reasonable. If I get this correct, enforcing them would result in the following text changes:
 * The part-sentence "... or confirmed that their expected national selection process would take place" would be removed.
 * Portugal would drop out of the table because the broadcaster has not officially confirmed its participation outside of planning the next Festival de Cancao (which has also not been confirmed yet).
 * The sentence starting in "The following countries participated in the 2019 contest ..." and the subsequent bulleted list would be removed.
 * Would these changes suit your intention? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference 1, yes, as the core of my comment, let alone via most cases-in-point-brought. That is if you understood my intention of removing this part-sentence, along with move of countries which have solely announced or planned selection info to "Other countries" – inclusive of countries with shows which always selected to-date yet lack upcoming Eurovision confirmation.
 * Otherwise, per your attempt of summarizing and verifying my points, I will base on referencing for your original comment on point 2 (as seen on the contribution history): Finland, Norway and Portugal would drop out of the provision participants…because they announced an event usually used for Eurovision would take place but not whether they would actually be used for Eurovision. Which I use to sharpen on inclusive of "usually" and "always" selected, to-date, in accordance to guidelines of following what the sources state, more-so in such situations rooted in the future and as even the authors don't make a link in a way enabling to directly quote upcoming Eurovision participation.
 * Finland and Norway example – if they only have national shows descriptions, even such always to-date selections status, they should and would be better described with their plans and status under "Other countries" where the reader, just as us editing users, can think about the country's progress and participation chances, by the by making the info accessibly-written straight on the article instead "provisional" country's pin-point with source linking national-show planning details without a Eurovision statement.
 * Portugal confirms the Festival. Its organizers cast composers for it. By writing "very initial detail" I stressed on how it's not close as a development towards a Eurovision participation. The obstacle is the authors adding this shows Portugal "confirms interest" for Eurovision. The "confirms"-statement yet attached to "interest". Per this I eventually decided to not move Portugal yet and as it should await others views but I support "confirms INTEREST" cases to also enter the "Other countries" shelf, in order to further narrow use of the "provisional" as presumptuous-stating list by nature, compared to the cautious-patient hence more peaceful-editing "Other countries". Reference 3, correct; completely removing solely pin-pointed previous-year activists, ideally also after hopefully gathering more supportive views and if no further views, can be attempted to be removed after few days await; at least what will be left of this list. אומנות (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Norway and Finland, upon further research I found that they allegedly also confirmed their ESC2020 participation intent, aside from just organizing the event. See "Norway: NRK confirms participation in Eurovision 2020: opens submission window" and "Finland: YLE confirms participation in Eurovision 2020". In both cases these are from ESCToday and also reference their respective shows being held, which is pretty much the same case as for Denmark. If we use these sources, would you prefer to keep all three in the table or drop all three? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These are just fine for the "provisional participants" as the authors state they confirm Eurovision participation, as in Denmark's case, yes they should be added to provisional. אומנות (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this: when did the Netherlands confirm participation? I know it might sound like a weird question, but where does it say that hosting the event automatically means participating in the event? Of course it has never happened before that the host country didn't participate, but I'm curious to know if there is any obligation for the host country to participate. Otherwise I think we should handle hosting and participation as two separate prospects, and in that case I believe the Netherlands' participation has not been confirmed so far. Hhl95 00:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * You're right that it is probably original research to say that a country will take part because it is the host country, but in this paricular case I don't think any source will particularly report that the Netherlands will take part as they consider this obvious too. What we could still do is cite this Wiwibloggs article that keeps getting mentioned on this talk page. It, too, considers the Netherlands a participating country. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Russia
I do not think the source for Russia is reliable according to Wiwibloggs it says that it is “  A fan blog has reported that broadcaster Channel One Russia has confirmed its participation for 2020. However, no source has been given for this” I looked at the site and there is not source anywhere. Wiwibloggs Sammyham84 (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not too fond of ESCape News' reliability, but note that we are using the same website for France's participation. The only source from Channel One I could find is a clip from the Evening Urgant late-night show. Should we consider scrapping ESCape News as a reliable source and stick to Wiwibloggs (or any other possible source) for France, as well as move Russia back to the non-confirmed participants? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an issue raised a while back about Wiwibloggs' reliability as a source as it was thought to violate WP:BLOG. It was allowed to be used because consensus was that it was "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I don't see that being the case for ESCape News or any of the other smaller blogs. Grk1011 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * William Lee Adams, Wiwibloggs' founder and editor-in-chief, is a professional journalist and was previously at least a correspondent for Time magazine. As far as I am aware, he retains some sort of oversight over the content written, so Wiwibloggs should technically be a reliable source, even if it remains a blog at its core (and citing blog-only content should be avoided in any case). Yet, Wiwibloggs (and all others) remain fan blogs and it is up to the community (us) to determine their reliability. ESCToday would be a strong contender, as it is one of the oldest and most regarded. It was actually founded in 2000 by Sietse Bakker, who is set to executive-produce this contest.
 * The Eurovision WikiProject currently relies on these fan blogs as heavily as it does because established news sources usually do not report on or investigate the details that are frequented in these articles. In the source linked above, Wiwibloggs regards ESCKaz, ESCXtra and ESCToday as "reputable fan media", but remarks ESCape News as simply "a fan blog" and dismisses its claim. Make of that what you will. There should possibly a project-wide discussion to identify reliable fan-driven sources (which can exist) so we can comfortably use (or avoid) them in the future. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiwibloggs was already discussed and found reliable, as well as ESCToday. Grk1011 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Opened a discussion to discuss various fan media outlets. For the time being, the core question remains: Should we use ESCape News here, or scrap it? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we decide that the source for Russia is not reliable, then none of our sources ar reliable. I have explained in an earlier discussion that we need primary sources. Eurovision fan blogs are secondary sources. If we cite ESCToday stating that some country confirmed participation, it is exactly the same as the source that Wiwibloggs used for Russia. ESCToday as well is just a blog that does not give any source. If ESCToday writes that some country confirmed participation, we still have no proof that the broadcaster actually made such a statement. ESCToday can write anything they want, same with all other blogs. So based on how we treat ESCToday etc., we have to treat the source for Russia as reliable too. However, this argument is purely out of consistency. My personal view is that blogs are no serious sources anyways, no matter how well-established they are. The very fact that it's a blog, already makes it unreliable for me. But in a broader sense, blogs are secondary sources and we should focus on primary sources. Even if they are scarce, then that's what we have to deal with. In the end, the EBU will reveal all participating countries. Hhl95 19:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * As stated previously, ESCToday is considered reliable (as I now learned, it was even decided by RfC), which means that we believe that they do not write anything they want but report truthfully, even if they, in some cases, might not be able to provide a link to their source because their source was a direct (email) exchange with the party that is written about or some sort of own research.
 * I understand your position, and you are right that, in this particular field, primary sources usually provide just as neutral statements / "hard facts as secondary sources would (in many other fields, such as corporate governance—one of my frequents—this is very much not always the case). However, secondary sources can also be reliable (regardless of their purpose) and it is for the community here to determine if a specific source is reliable. Reliable secondary sources help us provide information that an entity might have not made public itself (as is the case here). For reference, many known (un)reliable secondary sources are listed at WP:RSP based on community decisions. Lordtobi  ([[User talk:Lordtobi| &#9993;

]]) 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The very thing that I disagree on here, is that reliability is something subjective. Reliability is not determined by 'belief' or whatever. Reliability is objective. The only thing we have to determine is to draw the right line between reliable and unreliable. That is completely objective. Do you include blogs, or don't you? Do you include secondary sources or not? Does a secondary source need to have a reference to a primary one or not? It's this kind of questions that determine reliability, and not a subjective 'belief'. We have to determine the criteria by which a source's reliability is assessed. That's the only way to establish a sound, reliable and, above all, a clear sourcing system. Hhl95 23:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC+2)

Luxembourg/Lordtobi
Once again, Lordtobi, please discuss something on the talk page before you revert it. Since you're not doing it, I need to bring it up here. That is unnecessary. Regarding Luxembourg, it is valuable information to mention that the government is in a position to change the situation regarding Luxembourg's participation. That means, that the broadcaster's statement is not yet the very end and there is still a possibility that Luxembourg might participate. As long as the procedures with the government are going on, we should not handle Luxembourg as a non-participating country. However, we need to support that on the page by explaining the position of the government. The information is not duplicate, because it was not yet mentioned on the page, even if the same information was already in the other reference. Luxemburger Wort is still a secondary source, while the reference I added is the primary one. So it's better to have that included. So if you are not going to include this information, I'm going to put it back up again. We've had issues with edit warring before, which is simply because you don't discuss anything. Now all others have to be wise men and discuss stuff here in order to avoid edit warring with you, since you don't care. You absolutely need to change this attitude. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Luxembourg. Hhl95 15:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I already stated that the duplicate information regarded the sentence added by Ahmedo Semsurî earlier today. The section stated twice that RTL refuses to participate. The info you input originally included original research, which was removed by Ahmedo Semsurî earlier today due to be original research and unsourced, but you opted to re-insert it. Original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The state prior to your edit was the stable one, so if anything that was the WP:STATUSQUO. Furthermore, the sourced information you added, which is that the petition is still open, is still included but using a source that was already present. Primary sources are not valued higher than secondary sources (in many cases, it's quite the opposite), so it should not make a difference. As to how the petition could change RTL's stance, what is the Chamber of Deputies going to do? RTL has since become an investor-led company and is not owned by the government. The petition also requires at least 4500 signatures to be debated in parliament; it currently has 163. Rumours and speculation should not be included in the article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of reverting the edit, you could simply have asked me here on the talk page to source the sentence, which I can do and which I will do. We have discussed sources before, and primary sources are definitely of higher value than secondary ones. This was also supported by other users. If your view differs from others' views, it doesn't mean your view is the right view. Please just accept the outcome of discussions here. Just one example: we have a source of ESCtoday which says that RTL stated they wouldn't participate. But where is the proof? Mister Jiandani can write anything he wants. We have no proof that RTL actually said this. And THAT is why primary sources (i.e. RTL itself) are of higher value. Same with Luxemburger Wort. Luxemburger Wort itself includes a link to the Chamber of Deputies as their source. Then it's absolutely ridiculous to still maintain Luxemburger Wort as the source when the primary one is clearly available and accessible. RTL is not owned by the government, but financial support from the government specifically for a Eurovision entry could change RTL's attitude to participation. Whether or not it's owned by the government, is irrelevant. And it does not matter how far away the petition is from its goal. Since Wikipedia is neutral, we should not judge the petition as impossible. Now that is speculation. And I find it very ridiculous that a protest against rumours and speculation is coming from a person who strongly advocated for the inclusion of the incredibly speculative section on Catalonia. We have to know where you stand. Right now it seems that you have the unique ability to not make any fails, while everyone else by definition is doing something wrong. You revert pretty much everything that others add. Let me be clear that Eurovision 2020 is not your own personal project and you do not own the page. You do not have a monopoly on editing the page, nor do you have a monopoly on assessing and reverting edits by others, nor do you have a monopoly on adding valuable information. If someone adds information that you don't agree with, the right thing for you to do is to bring it up on the talk page. And nothing else. No undebated reverts. We have had fruitful discussions on the talk page, and literally all discussions are brought up by others. Everyone is ready to discuss stuff before editing, everyone is willing to take a humble and reserved position in order to avoid edit warring and other unpleasant situations. Yet you simply assert yourself to not discuss anything and just edit and revert whatever you like, meaning in practice that you take charge of the entire page without allowing any valuable contributions from others. This is absolutely not right. I know we ought to avoid personal attacks, but this really needs to be addressed in order to make sure that everyone can have a pleasant continuation of involvement in this page. Your attitude has to change. You have to respect the other editors and the edits they make. Reverts are ideally made by the person who wrote the information in question, after that person is convinced of the need for reverting here on the talk page. You really need to stop editing the page to your personal likes without any discussion, while ignoring the outcomes of past discussions. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and that counts for this page too. It's not your personal project. And you have to see that and act to that, otherwise you shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I don't know what more there is to say, I just hope I'm getting the message across. I have confirmation that more people share my views on this, so I'm not talking just for myself. The current situation is unacceptable and not maintainable. Everyone should have the chance to contribute to the page without immediately being reverted by Mr. Perfect. Thank you. Hhl95 16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * Secondary sources are considered reliable if it is collectively believed that they do not make their claims up. Many fan blogs like ESCToday and Wiwibloggs are touted as reliable by the Eurovision WikiProject because of this, so we are free to use them. Reliable secondary sources provide analysis and broader information on a given topic, which (non-independent) primary usually do not. Wikipedia usually relies on secondary sources; if both primary and secondary source are reliable and accurate, they may be used equally.
 * Regarding the petition itself, the conted you added stated that a possibly successfully tabled petition could lead to the government possibly supporting the participation financially, which could possibly lead to RTL changing their mind. The petition itself only advocates that a participation could enhance the country's "national branding", it does not present any options for the chamber to use should it be tabled.
 * RTL has also stated their non-focus on entertainment/music broadcasting as a reason not to participate. This is also why said unsourced sentence appeared to be original research/speculation, which is probably what led to remove it earlier today. You stated that could still bring a source for that claim to the table, if so, could you provide a link?
 * I am not going to respond to rest of the rant in detail because I feel that that would not be productive. I will just say that I am sorry if you feel like I am beleaguring this article, because that is not my intent. I am not new to the game, so I am merely trying to keep the article as close to Wikipedia's guidelines as possible. That does not mean that I am doing this as good as one could, not by a long shot. To err is human and something I am definetly good at. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that we can not use secondary sources at all or that they are not reliable. But primary sources are preferred, especially where it's about simple given facts, such as the opening and closing dates of the petition. Analysis is only useful when a section is more analytical. The problem with fan blogs is that they often contain a lot of false information. I think I have pointed out sometime before, that especially in the articles on the candidate cities, a lot of assumptions were made about those cities which were simply not true. Now that information is not the most crucial, but the point is that the quality of those sources is just not high. The articles are written without any critical assessment and the information is likely gathered from Wikipedia or just the first hit on Google. I'm all for professional secondary sources where secondary sources are due, but we can not attach too much value to amateuristic sources such as fan blogs. And when it's about given facts, secondary, analytical sources are just not relevant. Primary sources really are better there.
 * The petition is literally called 'Comeback of Luxembourg to the Eurovision Song Contest 2020' and it explicity asks politicians, and especially the Minister of Culture, to consider the comeback of Luxembourg. So it presents clear directions for the Luxembourg government to take in case the petition passes.
 * I'm now confused what claim you are talking about. I never wrote about the reasons of RTL. I simply explained the course of events that follows the petition. This is easily sourceable.
 * I don't want to do the rant all over again, I just hope you understand what's going on here. There is Wikipedia's Guidelines on the one hand, but also the discussions on the talk page on the other hand, and you shouldn't ignore their outcomes. And since you are admitting that you're not perfect, I would expect a different attitude from you, respecting and considering all contributions made by others, and not reverting them without any discussion on the talk page. Communication is key. Like I said, you're taking charge of all the edits while you are not bringing up any discussions on the talk page. You do it all by yourself, while everyone else brings up the discussions simply because you need to realise that your views and ways of working are contested and not as accepted as you think. So I hope this can change in the right way, and it's in your hands to make that change happen. Hhl95 00:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)+2
 * Let me quickly come back to the core issue with the original back-sentence. You say correctly that the petition asks the government and various ministers to consider a comeback, but it does not present what actions either could take to achieve this. Previously, the text stated:
 * The part "eventually to deciding on financial support" appears to be speculation as the petition does not ask specifically for such an action. It could be one of many possible outcomes that will most likely not be determined before the petition closes. Furthermore, the second part, "it could change the situation", seems to be speculation based on the prior speculation. If you have source for this claim, and you believe that source to be reliable, please provide that source so we can examine it together. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The key point here is that, although RTL has said they won't participate, there is still a road to participation that is open, namely via the government. I think it is valuable to make this somehow clearer on the page, and I think we should not yet handle Luxembourg as a non-participating country until the government road works out nothing either. So Luxembourg also shouldn't be yellow on the map, just grey. I'd like to hear your ideas (and anyone else's) on how we could work this out. Hhl95 23:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC+2)
 * I understand your frustration, but at present we can not be sure what the government would chose to do if the petition received enough signatures, or how RTL would react in such a scenario, unless this is supported by a reliable source. If there is no source for this possible alternative way, we should not mention it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we don't know the outcome. But that's not what I'm talking about. The fact is that there is still a road open. And we have to see whether it leads to Eurovision participation or not. So as long as that road is open, we should not yet consider it a non-participating country. Hhl95 23:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC+2)
 * Of course, there is always an open road as long as Luxembourg remains a member of the EBU. But their broadcaster has ruled out participating in 2020, which seems pretty definitive to me. If that ever changes, I'm sure we can move Luxembourg to either the 'yes' or 'maybe' columns - this is Wikipedia after all, we can change things on the fly. But for now it's quite a firm 'no', and I believe the article should reflect that. So I disagree with moving Luxembourg out of the 'no' category. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  08:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The end of the section lists two things: A governmental petition was opened and ran until August, and that the participating broadcaster stated that they do not want to take part in 2020. We should neither state that nothing can change nor that something can change, because we know neither definitively (and so do the sources). Re-reading the section makes me think that the sentence on RTL's non-participation confirmation could be toned down a notch as its (probably?) not in direct response to the petition. The overall content is fine and sourced. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The end of the section lists two things: A governmental petition was opened and ran until August, and that the participating broadcaster stated that they do not want to take part in 2020. We should neither state that nothing can change nor that something can change, because we know neither definitively (and so do the sources). Re-reading the section makes me think that the sentence on RTL's non-participation confirmation could be toned down a notch as its (probably?) not in direct response to the petition. The overall content is fine and sourced. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019
Portugal's song and artist will be selected in March 2020. Source: https://escxtra.com/2019/08/20/16-songs-will-compete-in-the-2020-festival-da-cancao/ EurovisionSC2004 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 11:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Name is incorrect in source. It should be Ryan, Tom and not Tom, Ryan. And the song date should be March 2020 not 25 January 2020. Many thanks EurovisionSC2004 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 11:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Host city leak heads-up
News are quickly making the rounds that Rotterdam has been leaked via the Eurovision.tv website. This is true can be found here, though a site for Maastricht was also created. The country overview page for the Netherlands listed "Rotterdam 2020", then "Maastricht 2020", now nothing at all. As usual, this should be treated as a rumour and merely mentioned, not put into action, until an official announcement is made. This, of course, is due on Friday. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how this ends, the accidental leak should probably be listed as an incident once the host city is confirmed on Friday. Hespen (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is currently included in this "Bidding phase" section. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But since both sites were up for a period of time, no city was leaked and both logos are still on the servers (Maastricht – Rotterdam). So there are no leaks at all and therefore not worth mentioning anywhere. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 21:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's completely unnecessary information. It says nothing at all, since there were leaks for both cities. And there is an explanation for it, namely that the EBU created pages for both cities in order to have them ready for 30 August. So there is no leak at all, as Dimsar already said. We shouldn't fill the page with unnecessary and unfunctional information, so better just remove it. Hhl95 00:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC+2)
 * Probably so, given that it was only temporarily relevant. It was originally added before the Maastrict page was even up and then developed from there. If the "Incidents" sections are taken over from the previous years, we can expect the info to re-appear there at some point, as they generally follow the same narrative (cf. "Oh no, too much smoke!"). I haven't made up my mind about these kinds of sections, though. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Latvia and Turkey
As far as Latvia is concerned, i found these sources 1 2 in which it is refered that Latvia have still to confirm. The source we provide to the article though, is no more valid in my opinion. What about that? Now, about Turkey i think that we are still awaiting an official confirmation on TRT’s plans for ESC 2020. I mean the source from eurovoix says that EBU confirmed the non participation of Turkey and no the broadcaster itself. In addition, in esctoday according to this source 3 they're still awaiting a desicion from TRT. --JeanisDL, 4 October 2019, 1:05 (UTC)
 * The Latvian articles seem to have misleading titles. The broadcaster is more concerned with how they will select their entry rather than actual participation. They already confirmed their participation, but are stating that they need more funding to host Supernova 2020, and if they don't get that funding they will need to internally select or host a smaller national final. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 00:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The deadline to hand in a provisional participation application with the EBU has already passed, and the EBU confirmed (via the source used in the article) that TRT has submitted no such application. ESCToday isn't always on top because they rely more or less exclusively on statements from the broadcasters themselves, and TRT has refused to anwer such questions for years now. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lordtobi Well, the deadline to submit the required paperwork has already passed but Armenia, Hungary, Italy, Moldova have still to do it though... I mean they haven't submit it yet. So with this thinking they're withdrawing too? I don't think so. That's why I think we should wait for an official confirmation and don't rely to the fact ebu told Turkey didn't submit it. --JeanisDL (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , their participation hasn't been publicly confirmed, but not denied either. The process is roughly the same every year: a provisional participation application has to be handed in by mid-September, though any broadcaster that later finds that it cannot participate can withdraw, no strings attached, until mid-December, and still after that though with a possible fee. It is likely that Armenia, Hungary, Italy, and Moldova have all applied provisionally, but this is not known to the public [yet]. For Turkey, it is known publicly that they have not applied, meaning that they cannot participate. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Esctoday
Is there a reason that mostly Esctoday is used for references? Plus, I noticed existing references from different websites being replaced with Esctoday ones. I think it's better to use more websites like Eurovoix and Wiwibloggs. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 18:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , ESCToday is considered reliable by consensus (though note that this discussion is 10 years old). I replaced sources by ESCToday if they are more up to date. In the case of Ukraine, I replaced a source from February that stated that Ukraine would participate if Russia didn't win with a source that concretely stated that UA:PBC confirmed its participation, which I find is better source material. I do prefer Eurovoix and Wiwibloggs as they are somewhat more professional and I will replace ESCToday if such a source became available from those outlets. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A source from ESCXtra has become available today. It's not a Eurovoix or Wiwibloggs, but better than ESCToday with its typos. Rejoice when all these sources become obsolete once the EBU announces the full participants' list. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In an earlier discussion, I have stressed and explained that we should use primary sources as much as possible. This view was supported by several others, so the right thing to do, is to follow it up. Instead of Eurovision fan websites, try to use the broadcaster's websites as much as possible when it comes to participation conformations. When it comes to the organisation of the Contest, try to use NOS, AVROTROS, NPO and EBU/Eurovision.tv as much as possible. There is absolutely no need for secondary sources when primary sources are available, for secondary sources are interpretative and thus subjective as compared to primary sources. Hhl95 19:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC+1)
 * This is often not possible when confirmation claims are based on "exclusive" statements made to sites like ESCToday and Eurovoix or regional media, and there is no primary source available, as is the case for (as an example) North Macedonia. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that. Hence I'm saying 'as much as possible'. Primary sources should be default; secondary sources should only be used in case there is no primary source. The problem here is that secondary sources are used as default, which is wrong. It's not hard to find primary sources. Often, secondary sources contain a link to the primary one, or you could just look up the website of the primary source and see if you can find it there. It seems the editors are not taking this effort, and I think they should. Wikipedia is not some kind of junk gathering. Hhl95 23:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Hungary
I see that many people have been putting that Hungary had withdrawn just because their national selection A Dal is not going to be used for Eurovision. That does not mean that they are going to withdraw because they might use and internal selection or a different way to select an artist. If any one has any problem about this please discuss it here. Sammyham84 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Even the Hungarian-language clickbait articles "Hungary withdraws from Eurovision 2020" / "Hungary aborts Eurovision 2020 participation" fail to provide an actual claim from MTVA/MTI that says that Hungary won't participate, just that A Dal wouldn't be used. These are the same bogus claims like when Latvia said that the Supernova budget had not been allocated yet, and everyone was convinced that it will happen and thus Latvia will not participate. Come two weeks later, the budget has been allocated, Supernova is set to happen, and Latvia said it will participate. Just wait for any kind of official clarification. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Even with the new source, we cannot assume that Hungary is withdrawing. Their statement to ESCToday is vague, and basically explains that A Dal does not lead to Eurovision anymore. The possibility of an internal selection or otherwise is still open. So I propose to reverse the edits with regards to Hungary's withdrawal. Hhl95 22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC+1)

I think it's premature to add Hungary as withdrawing since the esctoday article used as reference is not confirming anything (in fact it asks the question "Hungary: Has MTVA withdrawn from Eurovision 2020?". --Semsurî (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that as well. No official statement of the Hungarian broadcaster officially states they are withdrawing Yoyo 360 Wanna talk? 10:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. I've removed Hungary from the article as a so-called confirmed withdrawal. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Last year, the full list of countries was announced on November 7. Let's just hope it comes as early this year as well, this will solve all these kinds of disputes. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it. We have a reliable source saying that it does. The article's title also doesn't mean anything; the content is that matters. And as said, we'll probably have a final answer soon. Also,, I'll mark the country as withdrawn as well because 3 replies in favor in less than 2 hours is not a consensus. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion was opened four days ago, after which point you seem to be the only one defending naming Hungary as officially withdrawing. So yes, this is a crystal clear consensus and I am therefore delisting Hungary once more. Please don't interfere with consensus again. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see, more users wanted to express their opinion. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 13:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus, the article which initially confirmed Hungary's withdrawal was published just yesterday evening. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 13:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing Hungary from confirmed withdrawals. The title of the source used is: "Hungary: Has MTVA withdrawn from Eurovision 2020?". Look at the question mark, they are not even sure themselves as the statement by MTVA does not confirm yet deny anything: it's suggestive. Based on the statement in that article, I'd say there still is a possibility for an internal selection. Jesper2306 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the source listed is reliable enough to prove their withdrawal. I know my edits have been removed because the statement from ESCToday article said that "Instead of taking part in Eurovision..." so that people think they have actually withdrawn. Actually this statement has already been published in other sites (e.g. Eurovoix (https://eurovoix.com/2019/10/25/hungary-withdraws-from-the-eurovision-song-contest/)) earlier than ESCToday, which such a statement came from Duna, the organizer of A Dal, not MTVA themselves. So I believe that the context of not taking part in Eurovision applies to A Dal instead of withdrawing from the contest. Also, as most people said, the title has a question mark, which means withdrawal might be likely but isn't totally set to happen. LWL12345 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm laughing right now. They edited the article to include phrases like "most likely" if you check this archived version. So I guess, it's an opinion article now instead of a "report" one? —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 12:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair to call them a confirmed withdrawal unless the statement actually comes from MTVA as opposed to Duna. Until the time we get a statement from MTVA we don't know that they're withdrawing. Toffeenix (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that the difference between Duna and MTVA should be taken into account; they merged several years ago and the entertainment section (which by extension includes the Eurovision delegation) is within Duna. Similarly, I also don't think the headline of the ESCToday article makes any difference: the exact wording is Instead of taking part in the Eurovision Song Contest in 2020, [...], from which I personally interpret that they (seemingly the broadcaster as a whole; but then again, not that it should matter as long as it's an official source from the adequate section of the broadcaster, which it is) will spend all the resources formerly put into Eurovision into something else; clear indication of a withdrawal I'd say. MarcoSnail (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That what I also supported, but if you check the archived/original version of the article from my comment above, the author himself changed phrases like "Hungary joins the list of the countries who have confirmed their non- participation" to "it seems that Hungary will most likely join the list of the countries who have confirmed their non- participation". And that brings up the reliablity of the article. —<b style="color: #a530ff;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #ff8726;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh, I hadn't noticed that, good point. They don't cite any source here either (:c) but one of the biggest Eurovision websites in Spain mentioned that according to Hungarian media they haven't even started considering alternatives for participating in Eurovision 2020 (internal selection or selecting someone from A Dal) and that the fans have been years reporting huge indifference from the Hungarian media; could add to the credibility. (|\the article I mentioned). MarcoSnail (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

So after this broad concensus, why is Hungary still up there as a withdrawing country? I think it's clear where we are, right? Hhl95 19:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC+1)
 * The statement is vague
 * The article is not sure by itself ("we gather that Hungary MIGHT not participate")
 * The article is subjective ("we gather")
 * The article's reliability is in doubt
 * The statement is not from MTVA
 * The statement is solely about A Dal and what happens afterwards, thus says nothing about a Eurovision withdrawal

I definitely think we should wait until Hungary's position is more clear. It seems Eurovision sites are hesitant to give a confirmation right now, and this Wiwibloggs article highlights how nobody knows what Hungary meant by their statement. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 18:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and even the source that we had is now changed to say "it is yet uncertain if we will see the country partake". So the source is officially dead when it comes to sourcing a withdrawal by Hungary. I have carried out the necessary changes to the article; I just am unable to adjust the map, so if someone can do that, that would be appreciated. Hhl95 19:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC+1)

A lot of the reliable source eurovoix escxtra and wiwibloggs all mention about how Hungary might be a withdrawal country which mean that they have not withdrawn yet which mean that they still might use an internal selection  Sammyham84 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is, we shouldn't add Hungary until we have full clarity, not half-editorialised presumptions based on vague, ambiguous statements. We should get the full preliminary list from the EBU soon enough, there is no need to edit-war over this now. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)