Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020

Running Order

I have a proposal for the running order of the participants. Based on the "Eurovision Song Celebration" program on the official Youtube channel, each 3 of the automatic 6 qualifiers in each semi-final should be included in the running order list here in Wikipedia, since this is already official. For example, for the first part of ESCelebration, the announcer clearly said that orders 18, 19 and 20 are Italy, Germany and Netherlands respectively. --Ja 1207 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't have been their running order in the final. They were only included the the Song Celebration broadcast because there is not going to be one that replaces the final. The actual draw for the final is only determined once the semi-finals are over. This is apart from the host country, The Netherlands, which was already drawn into 27th place, not 20th. IceWelder [✉] 12:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the Eurovision website is "releasing" the official draw order through that program, so we should just update the page to reflect whatever the sources support. I don't agree with Ja 1207's proposal as it seems to be based on WP:OR. Grk1011 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Capitalisation conventions - question

Hey.

I'm just enquiring where I can find the conventions for how song names (and artists) are capitalised or not. For example, why Ireland's song is written as "Story of My Life" (without the capital O for 'Of') whereas other songs would capitalise every word. I also notice that songs in non-English languages, eg. French or Spanish, capitalise only the first letter of the song title.

Please point me in the direction of these naming conventions, or if it is simple enough, explain the reasoning behind this. Thank you! -Internet is Freedom (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Capitalization. In English, typically the first letter of each word is capitalized unless it is an article or preposition. Grk1011 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because even though the contest was cancelled, the contest was notable before the cancellation, and the cancellation of the event is also notable. The information on the page is true, verifiable and useful.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Support, and I don't think there's a reason to keep the banner up still. The IP user did not provide any reason why this article would statisfy WP:SPEEDY. I left a message on their talk page asking for their input and removed the banner. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it was already removed. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing of the lead pharagraph

The second sentence is currently this:

The contest would have taken place in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, following Duncan Laurence's win at the 2019 contest in Tel Aviv, Israel with the song "Arcade".

The bulk of this sentence is there to explain why the contest is in The Netherlands, but in fact it doesn't actually answer the question, because it does not explain that Duncan is from The Netherlands, or the fact that the previous winning country generally hosts the next edition. Wikipedia articles should be written so that even people who are completely unfamiliar with the topic can understand it (see WP:PCR), and for people who don't know what Eurovision is about, the above statement won't make much sense.

So that's why I decided to change it to this:

The contest would have taken place in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, following the country's victory at the 2019 contest with the song "Arcade" by Duncan Laurence.

I put the most important information in the front (that The Netherlands won, because that's the reason they would've hosted), and the details (the song & performer) at the back of the sentence, and I believe this makes the lead much clearer and makes it stay on topic. However, people have several times changed it again to that first version, and I was wondering what the reason for that is. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer your version. Grk1011 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I also prefer your version. The changes to the current version were unexplained.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, your version is better. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Every lead paragraph in articles concerning previous contests began this way (example from the ESC 2011 page):

It took place in Düsseldorf, Germany, following Lena's win at the 2010 contest in Oslo, Norway with the song "Satellite".

Shouldn't we do the same for the 2020 and 2021 pages' lead paragraphs, for uniformity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.55.254.146 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think for the sake of uniformity, every other article should be changed to match the 2020 and 2021 articles because it's clearly the better way of phrasing it. And while uniformity is nice I don't think the leads being worded differently is actually going to cause any problems.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Breadth and depth

I think the article should be abridged significantly. No need for such a comprehensive description of the preparations of and what "would have" happened during a cancelled contest. Theurgist (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What would you want to see removed then? Yes there's a lot of "would have"s but it doesn't really seem excessive to me. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

For example the artists who would have returned, the opening and interval acts, and in fact much of the preparation stuff – if not removed, sections like those should be made more succinct. The article should be more like a skeleton than a thorough coverage, as the details lose importance with the cancellation of the event. Now it's no less comprehensive than the articles on any other Eurovision, save for the lack of results. --Theurgist (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is this information not relevant though? I agree with Jochem in that I don't really see how it is particularly excessive as it currently stands. Also why do you believe there is a particular need to reduce the level of detail in this article just because it covers a contest which was cancelled? Surely the preparation for a contest that never happened is worth inclusion, especially when compared to the 2021 contest, where yes a lot of things were carried over but there were many aspects which weren't due to the logistics of organising a contest in the height of a pandemic. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think what would have happened should be a background of what did happen, not the other way around. As you've understood, it's not necessarily about deleting completely, but about cutting down. --Theurgist (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean it is true that the "Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and cancellation" section is quite far down, below all the stuff that didn't end up happening. I think restructuring the article so that what actually happened is given more weight could be a good idea. But I don't really see the point in removing sourced information. People may still want to know who would have performed at the event. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The list of selected artists will be included, of course. --Theurgist (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)