Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests

As we all know, no institution claims that Moldovan is a language anymore, with Moldova officially reverting the name of its language to Romanian. However, on pages for contests that happened prior to that change, the name was changed to Romanian as well. Is this the correct approach? Is for example "Soarele și luna" now considered to have been in Romanian for the purpose of the 2023 article, because I wouldn't say so. — IмSтevan ^talk 21:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Going by the Moldovan language, it seems like this has been a very complicated process. In 2003 (before Moldova competed in ESC), the Moldovan parliament declared Moldovan and Romanian to be glottonyms of the same language, i.e. that they are one and the same and that the title is just a linguistic variation. Additionally, in 2013 (eight years after Moldova began competing in ESC) the Moldovan Constitutional Court overruled an article of the Moldovan constitution that named "Moldovan" as the official language of the nation, making Romanian the official language from then onwards. Then in 2023 the Moldovan government essentially codified this to make Romanian the official language. Personally I don't see anything wrong with listing Romanian as the language of all Moldovan entries, going right back to 2005, given that the "official" recognition of Moldovan as the language of the nation is rather mixed and complicated even when it was the apparently preferred name according to some parts of the Moldovan legal system. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody run a bot to add |year=202X to instances of {{EscRotW}} in all yearly by country articles? This is for the purposes of having the correct flag be used (2023-2025 has the blue one), as well as linking towards the correct sections of the Rest of the World in the Eurovision Song Contest article — IмSтevan ^talk 21:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This task has been completed — IмSтevan ^talk 05:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This account has been vandalizing multiple pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-19128-83. I'm trying to revert some edits but they need to be blocked from editing. AdamantiosK (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• 
  Map A
• 
  Map B
• 
  Map C

I've tried making a new map that includes Canada, I'd like people's thoughts on this. We could also move Australia to the side, since having multiple boxes scattered around would make the map feel confusing? — IмSтevan ^talk 16:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would leave Australia in the top right corner where it was, to maintain consistency with all the maps we already have where it appears (see JESC). And I would put Canada in the top left corner with a square the same size as Australia's to achieve symmetry and due to its geographical location (even though it covers part of Greenland), trying not to distort the map of Canada vertically too much so it doesn't look strange like it does in this map (I have in mind how Canada looks in OTI's maps). Ferclopedio (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you link a map from OTI? I can use that one but it's a hard disagree from me for having two separate places for boxes. If we're adding boxes based on where the country is in relation to Europe, then Australia should be moved to the bottom right — IмSтevan ^talk 17:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Having the same sized square on the left for Canada would actually cover up half of Iceland too. -- AxG / ✉  21:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The bottom right is a place that makes more sense for Australia. But it's already in the top right on all our maps where it appears, I can imagine that spot was chosen because there's more space there, it doesn't obstruct anything (it's all Russia). If we decide to move Australia, we'd have to change it on all the maps where it appears for consistency. So it's best if it stays there.

The blank OTI map is here

Just a reminder that Canada already participated in the EYD, and it's already shown on their maps. I know that EYD is supposed to be outside the scope of this project, and these maps haven't been updated to maintain consistency, but I thought I'd mention it. See here. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

And also remember that this and this maps have also to be updated accordingly. And Candada has to fit there. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Going off those, we should put Canada in the top right corner with Australia. Those maps sadly already have an issue of covering Kazakhstan up, which could cause problems in the future — IмSтevan ^talk 18:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say that with all these cases and to avoid future problems, the most logical thing would be to move them all to the top left corner; there we have the entire Atlantic available and we don't cover any country (except for part of Greenland). And that this would have to be done on all similar maps for consistency. But I just realized we have another problem: the map in the infobox is an interactive map that links Australia's position on the map to the corresponding article, and if we move it from the top right corner, the source code would also have to be modified. See the source code here. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

That can be altered easily using a bot, since all of the maps use the exact same coordinates for Australia across all contests — IмSтevan ^talk 21:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think ImStevan's map here is more achievable, but I'd move them up further just below Greenland and just to the left of Iceland, however there's also the JESC maps with the UK and Wales next to Australia too that needs to be considered (map link) -- AxG / ✉  21:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The OTI map actually distorts Canada significantly tho? it looks really stretched at the top because the basis for that map is the Mercator map I'm pretty sure — IмSтevan ^talk 14:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The OTI map uses the Miller cylindrical projection, but it does not show all the Arctic Canadian islands because the map became too large vertically. My complaint was that Canada looked too weird in the first version, now it looks better. I don't know much about projections, but we need to find one that is consistent with the other maps, and that doesn't distort the size of the country too much. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @AxG and Ferclopedio: I changed the map of Canada to an orthographic projection, which retains shape much better, and moved the frames up a bit. Thoughts?

Yeah much better, but should the size of the Canadian box be the same height as the Australian one? And should Australia be on top since they participated first, since they'd be blank space above Australia between 2015-now, or Australia would sit where Canada is now and then go below Canada when they debut? -- AxG / ✉  17:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I say we at least try keeping some geographic consistency and have the first box always start just below Greenland, and then order them north to south. So Australia would be where Canada is right now for 2015-2026 — IмSтevan ^talk 17:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that for consistency, for map maintenance, and for our mental health, it is better to have a country always in the same place. Ferclopedio (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Then we should actually be prepared to add other countries eligible to be in the EBU to the map as well and plan ahead. See updated map. There is additional space below for Japan and devolved UK, although this would create a situation where the devolved UK would be all the way in the corner, with a gap between it and Australia — IмSтevan ^talk 17:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If anybody can think of a better way of devolving the UK for JESC maps that'd be great — IмSтevan ^talk 18:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I know that USA and Mexico are observers of the Council of Europe, but I am not so sure that they have a "public service media system aligned with Council of Europe standards". I think that right now, the only television broadcaster with a chance of joining the EBU under the new criteria is NHK (Japan). Ferclopedio (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes but we're not about to have two or potentially three separate boxes for Canada, USA and Mexico in a few years. If we want consistency, we have to plan ahead — IмSтevan ^talk 18:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

USA and Mexico are not going to create a "public service media system" anytime soon. Right now, we can stick to the current rules and anticipate their implications, but we can't predict the EBU's next move and the new rules they'll invent, because they can come up with all sorts of unexpected twists and we don't have a crystal ball. And there is a full Wikipedia guideline against crystal balls. Ferclopedio (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

We can crop out USA and Mexico from the map right now, and move Canada slightly down to fill the space. This would leave room for US and Mexican inclusion in the future, while not having them on the map right now — IмSтevan ^talk 18:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say WP:Crystal here, I'd just stick to Canada only. -- AxG / ✉  19:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@AxG and Ferclopedio: Check the map. I removed them, but still left space on top if the box ever needs expanding. This way we never have to move Australia again — IмSтevan ^talk 19:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added an alt map, aligning then vertically to the centre allowing 4 other boxes if needed, I kind of wish the maps where wider but I know that would changing the whole clickable feature and be a big hassle. -- AxG / ✉  19:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

We can expand the map to the left a bit without changing any of the pre-Australia maps. The clickable features can be fixed via a bot or even manually since it's not that many articles. What does bother me is that I feel like the map cuts off way too far up north in Africa and that it should be expanded a bit south so that all North African countries are properly visible, Libya is currently barely even on it — IмSтevan ^talk 19:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's that easy to expand the map to the left, because that would affect the entire clickable feature, since it's based entirely on the top left position of the map. And these maps aren't only used on the English Wikipedia.

Regarding the Canadian box, that is a good approach, but I would try to make sure that neither Russia nor Iceland are visible inside the box, so as not to cause problems when the maps are colored.

And I'm still not sure if I like having Australia floating there in the middle of the Atlantic all the years when it's there all alone, and that if that makes any sense. Maybe we should sacrifice Greenland and put Australia in the corner and Canada below it. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I made sure that Iceland and Russia get automatically coloured in once the main ones on the map are — IмSтevan ^talk 20:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

So ImageMap 0:0 is top left, then surely expanding the map south and east would cause no problems to existing ImageMapping? -- AxG / ✉  22:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That is correct, if that's the route you guys are fine with taking — IмSтevan ^talk 22:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @AxG and Ferclopedio: Presenting option C, where the map is expanded towards the east, opening up the entire vertical line for boxes. It took like an hour to add all those central Asian/Middle Eastern countries so I hope it was for something at least. (ignore the lakes missing, it's a layering issue that I can't be bothered fixing rn) — IмSтevan ^talk 06:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Option C is a viable option. But without Australia in the corner, we'd have still Australia floating when it's alone, and Canada wouldn't have room to grow if we need to expand its box later. The technical side effect I see with this option is that, with the width fixed by the infobox and the map zoomed in there, all countries will appear smaller and the clickable area will be reduced in practice; just be aware of that. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think extending westward would reduce space and affect sizing and clickable areas especially for the microstates, whereas expanding south and putting the insets there wouldn't affect this. Expand north Africa so Libya and Egypt are more viable and maybe have Canada bottom left, and Australia bottom right? -- AxG / ✉  11:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We have the (i) button in the bottom right corner. Ferclopedio (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Which can be moved. -- AxG / ✉  13:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

At a certain point we do have to ask if the clickable function is even worth it — IмSтevan ^talk 14:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I can swap the places of Canada and Australia in the corner for option C, which would fix the issue of Australia floating — IмSтevan ^talk 14:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@AxG and Ferclopedio: Option C which expands east has been removed and replaced by the one expanding south. Japan can fit nicely on top of Australia, the only issue is that Israel is too close for Canada's box to be able to stretch further north, but I have expanded the map beyond what can be seen here so the map can go even further south to accomodate that. Thoughts? — IмSтevan ^talk 15:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Also we have to adress Western Sahara, that is, how it should be depicted on the map. I coloured it in in the same fashion as the gap in the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq before they adressed it. — IмSтevan ^talk 16:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

In that new option C, I think it's best if we start from the left corner, Australia, Canada, etc. covering Western Sahara; this way we'll save ourselves several headaches. And you can narrow the height a bit; I mean, there's no need to go so far south for now. I'd put Australia right below where we finish showing Morocco on the current map. That way, we don't make the map unnecessary high, and we'll still show the countries on the right better than we do now. And for JESC you can put devolved UK on top of Australia in the ocean. It won't be never floating alone, as Wales debuted after Australia. This way, Australia, Canada, and developed UK, will stay in the same place in both events throughout the years. If Japan joins, we add Japan to the right of Canada. And for the full participation (and other) maps that are not clickable, we can put Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro to the right of Canada in smaller boxes, and if someone new joins, move them to the right. And we don't need to expand south the annual maps before Australia debut. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. If nobody has any objections I will implement this — IмSтevan ^talk 19:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I moved the boxes to the left but I kept the height. The map is currently a perfect square, and it covering the entire EBA feels fitting — IмSтevan ^talk 19:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I can get behind this, I personally would like the boxes the same width. But overall we have maps available for when Canada debuts. -- AxG / ✉  20:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we update the older maps already by moving Australia (and devolved UK) to the bottom left? — IмSтevan ^talk 21:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's wait a few days to allow time for any objections before start changing maps everywhere.

The new map is twice the size in bytes of the previous one; I imagine it's because of all the new unseen area outside the map, but I don't know if this isn't a bit overkill.

I have seen that you have already updated the ESC2027. The clickable area of ​​Morocco should also be adjusted, because there is an area left out.

JESC2026 looks awful with developed UK the same width of Australia. When I mean that I mean in a smaller box to avoid clashing with Portugal. It would look better, so as not to give the impression that the UK is larger than Australia. Ferclopedio (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but I thought that people preferred boxes of the same width/height used where possible. I expanded Morocco's clickable area — IмSтevan ^talk 09:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case there is no sense in having the narrow UK in the same width as large Australia, it gives a false impression, and makes the map awful, so it is not possible. :)

I also like things aligned, and we can align things as best as possible, but sometimes geography and logic is what is not aligned. I understand to have developed UK and Yugoslavia in smaller boxes as they are way smaller countries and have different shape than Australia and Canada. And historically, in maps with boxes like this, the normal thing is to adapt the boxes to the geography, not the other way around (making all the boxes the same size).

By the way, don't forget to send Canada and Yugoslavia to the bottom left corner in the new EYD maps :). Ferclopedio (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

And I changed the upcoming events maps to draw some attention to the changes, perhaps get more opinions — IмSтevan ^talk 09:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I understood this move. Ferclopedio (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ImStevan, we can't give Canada any color yet. I mean, Canada has to appear in light grey for now. On the participation map, since there haven't been any contests CBC could participate in since becoming a member, Canada can't appear in yellow yet, which is why it have to be light grey. On other maps, it cannot appear in dark grey, as dark grey is reserved for countries that have already participated, so it has to be in light grey like Egypt or Algeria. And just as CBC is eligible to participate in ESC 2027, it is also eligible for JESC 2026 and next EYM.

And Canada's appearance in light grey on present and future maps makes sense as it is eligible to participate. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I was even the one to remove CBC from the list of full member EBU broadcasters that haven't competed, idk why I put it in yellow. I'll make the neccessary corrections tonight. Should Canada appear on the other maps as well (like JESC) as the only EBU member currently off the map? — IмSтevan ^talk 11:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Or let me rephrase, are we establishing the precedent that all full members of the EBU/eligible countries should be present on a map at the time of a given contest taking place? — IмSтevan ^talk 11:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we have any cases where this hasn't happened? Until now, all full members were within the EBA, and we show all of them on the maps, even if it is just a small portion in some cases. We are enlarging south to show more of those that appear on maps but are hardly seen.

I think that with the new square map it makes sense that Canada appears in light grey in the ESC2027, ESC2028, and JESC2026 maps. And there may also be logical reasons for its non-inclusion for now. Ferclopedio (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Are we forgetting about Czechoslovakia on maps?, or are we taking a myth for granted? Because if it is true that ČST was a member of the EBU between 1991 and 1992, it was eligible at least in 1992 and we are not taking that into account in maps.

But that whole thing sounds strange to me. The OIRT was merged into the EBU on 1 January 1993; did ČST really become a member before that, being the only OIRT member to do so, when the full integration of OIRT was already on schedule? Integration wasn't immediate; it surely took time. It's odd that ČST became a member before 1993. And Czechoslovakia was dissolved also on 1 January 1993, and ČST assets were transferred to ČT and STV before that, so the ones becoming EBU members that date were ČT and STV; therefore, ČST may never have been a member of the EBU. I did a quick investigation on the subject and found nothing, and the only reference to it in the EBU article does not mention ČST membership at all (or at least I couldn't find it). Could it be a myth that we're taking for something real? Or am I missing something? Does anyone have any real knowledge about this?

If this is false, the information about it will have to be removed from the corresponding articles; if it is true, Czechoslovakia is missing from the maps. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

ČST participated on Jeux sans frontières season 23 on Summer 1992. This may be a clue. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

How would Czechoslovakia be missing tho? We don't include non-existent countries on modern day maps (unless ofc we're talking about the entire history of a contest). Czechoslovakia is irrelevant to ESC, JESC, EYD etc. — IмSтevan ^talk 21:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about the full participation green map, if ČST was a member in 1992 it has to be there in yellow. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Ooooh, noted. That is true and it will be added — IмSтevan ^talk 21:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @ImStevan, I don't want to be too picky, but I don't know if you've noticed on the boxes, but on the Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Czechoslovakia boxes, the only country in color is the country we are referring to. But in the Canada box, you've colored Russia, Iceland, and Greenland, that are two different criteria for the same thing. And in the developed UK box, Ireland is missing. Wouldn't it be better, for the sake of consistency, if in the Canada box everything that isn't Canada were in light grey and in the developed UK box, the part of Ireland visible is added also in light grey?. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No. YUG, SCG and CSK are historic countries and colouring in their surroundings would cause confusion as to what time period the map is supposed to represent, the time of debut, or last participation, or final days of existence or smthn else entirely. The UK has no surroundings because it represents their internal division. The only alternative I can think of is deleting those historic countries' surroundings as well — IмSтevan ^talk 13:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Deleting those historic countries' surroundings would make things worse, as countries would be more difficult to identify (surroundings are a big help on that), and would give the false impression that they are islands. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Deleting the surroundings but labelling the boxes with their ISO-3 names? (YUG, SCG, CSK), since that works regardless of which language project it is — IмSтevan ^talk 19:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Nononono, better not to add codes :) Ferclopedio (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

So just keeping everything as is? — IмSтevan ^talk 20:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree from the beginning that YUG, SCG and CSK should have their surroundings in light gray. And I still believe that for consistency with them, Canada should also have its surroundings in light gray, and that Ireland is missing in the developed UK box (this does not detract from the fact that the box represents the parts of the United Kingdom). Thus, each box only colors the country it represents, but I see that I am not able to convince you of this. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, that means that we only disagree on the UK, which I am firm about. It's only an internal division map, and showing anything outside of the UK would detract from it and make it more confusing — IмSтevan ^talk 20:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Now I'm glad we made these changes so early — IмSтevan ^talk 13:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

How fitting, Canada announcement on Canada Day.  AxG / ✉  18:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I just found out and I can only say WAAAAAAAAAT! :) Ferclopedio (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: @ImStevan, for the decades of debut we are using this map since this discussion per accessibility. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted, I'll update that one — IмSтevan ^talk 21:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

We have another issue, in the host cities map, Shouldn't Zagreb be in Yugoslavia instead of Croatia? Ferclopedio (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Well yes and no. Zagreb is still a city that exists and it exists in modern day Croatia — IмSтevan ^talk 22:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes but Zagreb hosted when Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia is the country that should be painted green (in its box) instead Croatia, as the contest has never been hosted in Croatia as an independent country. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

but Zagreb is still in the same spot on the map, idk. Even as a part of Yugoslavia it was Croatia that hosted so I never saw this as much of an issue — IмSтevan ^talk 22:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but all the legends and captions of the colours of the map says "counties that has hosted.." and Croatia has never hosted, Yugoslavia did, and if we paint green Croatia, the maps is totally anachronistic, Croatia didn't exist as a country when the contest was hosted in Zagreb. And in the map we are painting the Countries hosting.

Isn't this exactly why we're adding the boxes? We paint Yugoslavia when participated, when debuted, but not when hosted? That has no sense. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

And if with "it was Croatia that hosted" you mean RTV Zagreb, it was on behalf of JRT representing the whole Yugoslavia, as JRT was the EBU member broadcaster then. Ferclopedio (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose you're right — IмSтevan ^talk 22:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed — IмSтevan ^talk 23:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Another user has reverted the change. But why is Yugoslavia so tiny, at least make it larger or the same size box as Canada and Australia.  AxG / ✉  14:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

On the participation map, Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro used to be stacked for a short period of time before Czechoslovakia was added, both together having the same box height as the Australia box. When we added Czechoslovakia, I moved the two to be next to eachother, retaining the size. That is also the size used in the host city map — IмSтevan ^talk 15:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand why it was included, but I really oppose the line linking the markers for Zagreb in both the Yugoslavia box and present-day Croatia. Initially I thought it was an error when creating the file, a mistake that wasn't removed before publishing, before I realised what it actually meant. I get that Zagreb continues to exist as a city post-Yugoslav collapse, but I don't see why it's important to show it both in the Yugoslavia box and in Croatia, especially when Croatia as a modern-day nation hasn't hosted it. I think just having it included in the Yugoslavia box is perfectly fine, we don't need to be overcomplicating things here, and I personally believe the current format raises more questions on the reader than it answers. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I also think we can make the Yugoslavia box bigger in this map; there's no reason it can't be to the same scale as the now-independent individual republics within the main map. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I also think that the line is too much. One Zagreb in Yugoslavia and the comment we have in the map description and the note in the map caption in the host cities article is enough.

The other issue in the hosts map current version is the dark purple. I understand the move for better accessibility, but it was achieved right the opposite, with a shade so dark the markers are difficult to see, making the map less accessible. The point is to have a shade darker than the shade of the green, but no too dark to hide the markers.

Regarding the size of the boxes, please don't consider only one specific map. We are trying to make all maps across all Eurovision events as coherent and aligned as possible, placing the boxes in the same place/order and with the same size on all maps. The worst case scenario we have is the full ESC participation map, the boxes must look good there and there must be room for future additions, the other maps are variations of this with less boxes. It wouldn't make sense, either for consistency, maintenance, or clarity, for the boxes to be different sizes on each map. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

And it wouldn't make any sense to put Yugoslavia the same size as Australia and Canada as in here either. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Right now the Sanremo pages use multiple names to refer to the shows- the most recent years have "First night", some of the years before have "First evening" and then some of the articles for older years have "Semi-final 1" which lines up with the infoboxes.

With Sanremo's branding as a festival rather than a contest and the fact that nobody refers to the shows as semi-finals in Italian or English anyway, it makes sense to refer to them as either nights or evenings. Some kind of standardization just needs to be established, between "First night", "First evening" or "Night 1" and then for the articles and infoboxes to be changed accordingly. I'm also not sure whether the final should be referred to as the "Third/Fourth/Fifth night" or the "Final night". CasaCrimson (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I also support the standardization. Although "serata" is literally evening, they are more commonly referred to in English as "night". And "night" is a good term in this case, because evening shows are commonly associated with nightlife (such as in "Opening Night"). So, I say, "First night", "Second night", etc. And regarding the last night, I would opt for "Final night". Just a google search brings up thousands of references about the "serata finale" or "gran finale", and for consistency, to differentiate from the previous nights, and to remark that is the final, I think "Final night" is better (keeping the night as a Sanremo feature). Ferclopedio (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There are some weird cases with shows after the "Final night" though, such as the independent composers competition from 1957, the "Votofestival" from 1961/1962, the UNICEF Gala from 1975 etc, where I don't know what they'd be referred to as, or if they should be included at all in the infoboxes/show overviews. It might make more sense to always refer to shows by their number and add some kind of subtitle like "Final", "Newcomers final", " Cover night", "Independent composers" in the show overview section, which is what Italian Wikipedia does. CasaCrimson (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Right now, the infobox supports up to five semis (nights) and a final for the main competition, but it does not support any post-final shows. We also don't have in the infobox pre-shows like Sanremo Giovani. For sure those pre- and post- shows should be covered in the prose, but we don't have them in the infobox.

I think that for simplicity, consistence, and maintenance, in the infobox and in the section headers is better to have only "First night", "Second night", etc... and to explain in the prose what was that night about. The "Final night" goes in its "final" parameter in the infobox, so it is not treated as another night, and if we name it by the ordinal, it can generate confusion, and it may seem that the final is missing. If you think that "Final night" can be interpreted as meaning the last night rather than the night of the final, and this clashes with having post-final shows, we can leave the final as simply "Final". Ferclopedio (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the infobox has values for qualifying rounds, heats, semi-finals, final and superfinal, you can easily accomodate 20 different nights. You simply rename the labels. To make things easier, if there is one post-final night, you can use the superfinal value, and just rename it — IмSтevan ^talk 00:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and we can adapt the infobox by adding new parameters if it's worthwhile in some format. The point is that adding pre- and post-shows dates to the infobox that aren't from the main competition just adds noise and isn't consistent with its use elsewhere.

In Sanremo, we already use the semis parameters, which are the ones that make sense and are specified in the infobox documentation, we just need to standardize the name of this semis (nights), and update them accordingly.

And by the way, we don't have a parameter in the infobox for a superfinal (yet). Ferclopedio (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: standardization is good if we talk about things with the same meaning/function. However, not all Sanremo editions have had the same concept in their competition. In early years, we have real semi-finals, i.e. two heats with a certain amount of songs qualifying for a grand final. In today's Sanremo editions, none of the participating entries gets eliminated between night 1 and 5. For some editions, e.g. 1981 or 1985, the exact format or the number of shows and their function (qualifying or not qualifying heat) is not specified in the article. I would advocate for calling the final "final", shows with a qualifying element either "heat" or "semi-final" (if it's two heats) and all other shows (or shows where we don't know for sure whether they had a qualifying element) either "1st/2nd/3rd night" or with their name of theme, like "cover night", see e.g. the example of Festivali i Kenges 63 with two semi-finals, a "nostalgia night" and a final. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The function of heats and semi-finals are the same, but Melodifestivalen specifically uses the term heat so that's what's on Wikipedia. It's just the name of the shows, there's no reason a "first night" couldn't have eliminations as well. And for Sanremo, sources from the 50s and 60s still say "serate" despite the format being different, so I don't see why the names should be inconsistent. CasaCrimson (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Slight correction: the usage the term 'heat' within Melodifestivalen articles has a bit of a more complicated history. Originally we did use the term 'semi-final', but when the 'second chance' round was rebranded for the 2022 contest as 'semi-final' in Swedish a new term was needed. The Swedish word that has been consistently used by SVT since 2002, 'deltävling', literally means 'part (of a) competition', and thus doesn't have a direct English translation that we could readily use. 'Heat' was the best option as discussed by WikiProject members, and was retroactively applied to all Melfests going back to 2002, since apart from the second chance/final kval round, the structure has essentially been the same since then. mdeire (formerly Sims2aholic8) (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

'Heat' is also used in sources that we use, though I don't recall if sources came up with it first as the English term or if it was orignally circular. Grk1011 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I was unaware, thanks for the correction. If the standard on Wikipedia is to use the term semi-final for anything with that format then that's fine.

Following EurovisionLibrarian's proposal, from what I can gather about the formats from Italian Wikipedia: 1951-1976, 1979-1983 would have semi-finals and 1977-1978, 1984-2026 would have nights. What about 2013-2014, are the first two nights where half the songs in the big artists section are eliminated, semi-finals? Or does the inclusion of a newcomers section rule this out? CasaCrimson (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)