Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

As a followup to 2025 RFC on Baltic bios infoboxes, 1940 to 1991.
Which versions of the 2025 RFC infobox decision, should be used? Examples:

• A - Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
• B - Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
• C - Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
• D - Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
• E - Panevėžys, then part of Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
• F - Panevėžys, then administered as part of Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
• G - Panevėžys, then governed by Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union

GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal options added. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note1: In essence, the question is whether (A) & (C) are compliant with MOS:GEOLINK

Note2: This question has no relation to the 'currently active' Kaja Kallas footnote RFC, fwiw.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• A E Both the Lithuanian SSR and the Soviet Union are defunct, so it makes sense to link to them. I don't think that runs afoul of GEOLINK, which is more focused on extant places. If you didn't know what the Lithuanian SSR was, you would have to copy and paste that into the search because even if you went to Panevėžys, that doesn't have a link to the Lithuaniun SSR or the USSR. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @CaptainEek: I've added additional options. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended. E seems to solve the problem. F or G would be fine too, but that's just bikeshedding at that point. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing options that seemed to be getting support in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question:
  • "Tallinn, then part of Estonian SSR, Soviet Union"
  • "Tallinn, then administered as part of Estonian SSR, Soviet Union"
  • "Tallinn, then governed by Estonian SSR, Soviet Union"

WP:RFCBEFORE advises trying to resolve a question like this in a regular discussion before calling an RFC. As that discussion was proceeding well, this RFC feels a bit premature, especially since the RFC question seems to disregard it rather than using the outcome to refine. -- Beland (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: - I've added the additional options, you've mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A. Simple, informative, concice. Clarifications on status can be done in page text, not the infobox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E per MOS:GEOLINK, which gives very clear guidance to avoid [linking] [consecutive comma-separated sequences of two or more territorial units], and instead suggests to space the links out when feasible. I see no compelling reason to deviate from the suggestion given at MOS:GEOLINK, which is further supported by MOS:OVERLINK which states that Links may be excessive even if they are informative. For example, because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination. Balance readability, information, and accessibility when adding multiple links in one section of text. Katzrockso (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E or G, the other options are either too long (F), violate MOS:GEOLINK (A, C, D), or are insufficiently informative (B, which lacks the useful link to the SSR). Gawaon (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• F or G but I prefer F. Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E, F or G. All satisfy MOS:GEOLINK by adding a qualifying phrase between extant and non-extant names. "part of" might be seen as less neutral than the other two, but WP:NPOV concerns would probably be better addressed by a footnote. Indrek (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E (Summoned by bot) E sufficiently establishes, place name, geographic location and succinctly establishes 'regime at the time', which is pertinent info in most cases. F & G, apart from being over-long, imply that that the place was administered from somewhere else (as a colony) or somehow 'irregularly' ruled. That kind of detail isn't necessary in an infobox and could be confusing.C or D would be acceptable, but lack the clarity of E. Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• A, B, C, or D. The other options diverge from one of the most consistent standards we have across en.wiki, consistent enough that readers probably expect it. They are also longer and thus more likely to mess with infoboxes. Give readers credit that they both understand the comma convention that we use everywhere from text to article titles, and that they understand the linear passage of time. "Dallas, administered as part of Texas, United States" is not something that brings the reader additional clarity. CMD (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E: seems to comply with WP:GEOLINK, is clear and helpful, and allows the user to access the historical area as well as the current place. The two links are all that we need. PamD 13:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• A, C, or E. My feelings are generally that, when a place of birth/death in a person's infobox incorporates a no-longer-extant subnational entity, it's useful to the reader to link that entity so that (if they want it) they have access to further context about the location at that time. For that reason, I think the options that link Lithuanian SSR (or its equivalents) are preferable to those that do not. I'm willing to bend the guidance at MOS:GEOLINK for the sake of this point; I read that guideline as mainly focusing on linking in article prose, and I believe that infobox text serves different needs and so does not need to necessarily follow it strictly. However, I'm also open to E as an option that meets the letter of GEOLINK while losing the least amount of concision. I oppose F and G as essentially just more cumbersome ways of achieving the same compromise as E. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E seems to me most appropriate to me. While nothing was actually decided in that RFC, there were people in the original discussion who supported the Soviet Union birthplace (including me) that had no problem with a clarifying footnote. This is a good solution, and less cumbersome than F or G, without ceding our preference to the de facto country rather than the de jure one. For the same reason, I don't think the Texas example above is comparable since I don't think the contextualization is as crucial to a typical reader here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to make this more complex for the poor closer, while my preference is E, I'd accept anything A-D over F or G. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A, B, C, D - The first four options are highly common across other bios on Wikipedia GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• B (minus typo) or E/G per GEOLINK. Oppose A and C. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• A - simple, factual, and informative. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E simple and informativeMwinog2777 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E seems like a good compromise, I'd prefer A but can see that will conflict with MOS. I'm less a fan of F and G, rather keep it simple and explain in the related articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A > C > (E=F=G) >>> D>B We link to things we don’t expect our reader to understand. It would be stupid for GEOLINK to override that. I am neutral on the wordier options, as I do not understand the distinction between them. — HTGS (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• F but all of these are inaccurate as they do not explain the fact that Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union de facto, but de iure were still considered to continue to exist as sorveign entities due to illegality of Soviet actions. Tallinn, Soviet occupied Estonia or Tallinn, de iure Estonia, de facto Estonian SSR, Soviet Union would be factually correct and short enough for infobox --~~Xil (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussions I read suggest that some people truly do not understand what the issue is, so assuming good faith, I'll expand on this a bit. Since the first half of 20th century, for reasons hopefully obvious to anyone knowing the slightest bit of history, international law has been discouraging territorial expansion by force. As such an internationally recognised sorveign country being forced to become a part of another country is considered illegal. This includes any acts that attempt to create legal rights and justify land aquisition like establishing puppet states, administrative units etc. From legal perspective such acts are considered null and void, they do not create any rights and are treated as if they do not exist at all. Nobody, of course, is denying that the physical reality is what it is, but it is refered to in terms that only acknowledge the situation on ground, such as that there is military occupation, in this case the occupation of the Baltic states. The non-recognition of Soviet Union annexing the Baltic States is the objective historical reality, not some nationalist fringe view, Wikipedia has multiple, well sourced articles covering the topic , such as State continuity of the Baltic states, which shows that dozens of countries supported this interpretation of the international law during the Cold War. On basis of this being the international law, the Baltic States restored independence during the collapse of Soviet Union and as such it is now part of constitutional laws in these countries. As such options A to E solely listing Soviet Union and its internationally unrecognised Soviet republics are very problematic, and options F and G are only moderately better as they imply that something is up, but don't really explain to the reader that the mainstream view is that de iure the location in question belonged to another sorveign country. Furthermore the Baltic States now have regained contol over their territories, plus it potentialy appears in an article on a living person, who also doesn't think Soviet Union had any right to the land they were born on, there have been multiple cases outside of Wikipedia when such language has been chalanged [1] [2] [3] [4]. Therefore presenting information like this is misleading and can potentially cause problems to people, who whish to actually use Wikipedia as a source ofinformation and copy facts from here. Not to mention that the current debate has gained enough traction to get coverage in the mainstream media in Baltic States, which regard the current state of Wikipedia articles as disinformation and question if this is not a manipulation by Russian propogandists.[5][6] [7]. Ignoring it likely will just keep on provoking further controversies. It is far from WP:NPOV to complitely disregard, what entire countries consider the objective historical reality, on basis of having held a strawpoll, the result of which actually did leave otions for further discussion, such as on adding footnotes etc. In addition, Russia currently is using extrely simmilar tactics to what Soviet Union did in Baltics to justify its attempt to gain lands in Ukraine, which is met with very simmilar international reactions, in that case it appears that there is no problem with listing balanced information in the infoboxes, such as stating it is internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia, adding footnotes, using de iure/de facto. There are plenty of ways to come up with neutral wording that is short enough e.g. Panevėžys, de facto Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union, de iure Lithuania or Panevėžys, Soviet occupied Lithuania ~~Xil (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetly such option as you are offering is almost never an option to choose from in RFC. And wast majority of editors, wants to stick with maps show, that what we will use. Additionally im amaised of one user who wants to unify all infoboxes, have no idea how he will manage find single solution, to all worlds problems, Balcans, Isreal/Palestine, China/Taiwan, Baltics, Ukraine/Russia and others... BerzinsJanis (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not see a problem with there potentially being a broader policy on contested territories, although not all cases are simmilar to this one, Ukraine is, historically some cases of occupation by Axis powers might be, but issues in Balkans, Isreal/Palestine, China/Taiwan, as far as I know, are not. --~~Xil (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All of these options are highly biased. The only correct option is "Panevėžys, Lithuania" as this was the legal state under international law. If you insist to mention the de facto rule at the time, then the only correct option is "Panevėžys, Lithuania (Soviet occupation)". ~2026-52185-6 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This first option is not being added as the consensus in the previous RfC was to include "Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" in the place name. The current RfC is about establishing the specifics of how it should be implemented (with regards to linking and wording), and does not intend to rehash the previous RfC. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A, C, E, F, G - Lithuanian SSR needs to be linked. - Neptuunium (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• A followed by C, assuming Soviet Union is seen as common word that shouldn't be linked. IMO it rhymes with "cases" like Gandhi and Miriam Adelson. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• C/A - Linking to the administrative subdivision but not the administrative superdivision seems fine style wise, but have both linked isn't a problem either. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• C for compliance with GEOLINK. I don't think the "then administered/governed as part of" needs to be added since it is too verbose for an infobox, which are supposed to be succinct. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 05:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, but C is actually not in compliance with GEOLINK, which states that normally only the first element should be linked? Gawaon (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Be sure to read the last part of MOS:GEOLINK, which says:

  If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is not, it is preferable to space the links out when feasible, e.g. Kumrovec, then part of Austria-Hungary ([[Kumrovec]], then part of [[Austria-Hungary]]).

  -- Beland (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's what options E to F are for. They are clearly GEOLINK-compatible. Gawaon (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe that an extra 3 words is "too verbose" for an infobox. They don't have to be the shortest possible way to phrase something. I'm replying to you as a reply to anyone that has made this argument, not that I've singled you out specifically. Bluefist ^talk 23:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There should be no consideration for the E, F and G options. The infobox person documentation is pretty clear on the three-way formula for listing geos. The previous proferring and edit warring for these has only been driven by off-wiki campaigning by nationalists. Another example: De-facto is how we go, a person born in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is listed as such without consideration for the legitimacy of the government in the 1990s or now. Gotitbro (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I kinda doubt that? Certainly a simple Afghanistan is sufficient to such cases; no need to make things more complicated than they have to be. Gawaon (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the form E is explicitly suggested by GEOLINK for such cases (where the second-level unit no longer exists), while A, C, D are arguably explicitly forbidden (or at least strongly discouraged) by GEOLINK. That has nothing whatsoever to do with nationalist feelings. Gawaon (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) is what I was primarily talking about. Listing entities should not be a question of complication but a question of fact. The entire reason simply listing Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia was explicitly and overwhelmingly rejected at Infoboxes#RFC:_Baltic_states_birth_infoboxes.

  This RfC would then appear to be mostly semantics. As for GEOLINK and its 'preference', that is one without any major precedent for all the bios and BLPs I have trawled since I first opened Wikipedia haven't come across any major ones following it. It is safe to say we can ignore that preference.

  As for nationalist driven canvassing concerns, the only reason I mention it was after coming across the massive off-wiki media and social media campaign in the Baltics attempting to alter how we do things at enwiki (reported at the Signpost). The edit wars, disruptions, discussions et. al. and subsequent RfCs to tackle that, all stem from that very coordinated effort and editors should be very wary of that. Gotitbro (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I'm in agreement with the outcome of the earlier RfC. This one is about settling the details. However, E to G are fully in agreement with the outcome of the earlier RfC and are valid options, should one of them manage to gain (relative) consensus. Gawaon (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Administered" is often used in lieu of "occupied" on enwiki which was of course rejectes. So no I would not say that these are in consonance with the earlier RfC. Gotitbro (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Characterizing any outcome as "overwhelming" misrepresents a discussion where significant concerns about WP:NPOV were raised regarding the unique international legal status of the Baltic states - whose Soviet annexation was never recognized de jure by most Western nations, a fact extensively documented in the article State continuity of the Baltic states.

  The RFC result remains disputed, and editors who disagree with its application have legitimate grounds for doing so based on policy concerns that were not adequately addressed in the original discussion. Seungsahn (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think the earlier RfC was improperly closed, you'll have to challange the closure. Otherwise there's nothing more to be done about it and we can really focus on the new one. Gawaon (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that the closure has already been challenged once, twice, thrice, unsuccessfully. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not know that, thanks for the heads up. To be noted that the editor above has been edit warring exactly over this [8].

  I will also inform editors of the failed RfC chsllenges at Talk:Kaja Kallas where a very related discussion is ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I kind of expected as much, though thrice is indeed more than I expected! All right then, so we can well and truly consider the old RfC as settled for good and move on with the discussion. Gawaon (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The number of times a closure has been challenged doesn't address whether the underlying concerns have merit.

  The challenges occurred precisely because the RFC failed to adequately engage with the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law - a substantive issue that remains unresolved regardless of procedural outcomes. "Settled" and "correct" are not the same thing. Seungsahn (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be satisfied with a footnote noting that the occupation was considered illegal by many countries, as proposed on the other RFC? -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A footnote would be an improvement over the current format, but I have concerns that it still places the legitimizing framing ("Estonian SSR, Soviet Union") in the most prominent position while burying the critical legal context where most readers won't see it. The purpose of an infobox is to convey key facts at a glance - if the illegality of the occupation is important context, it shouldn't be hidden in a footnote. I'd prefer the infobox text itself to reflect the reality, such as "Tallinn, Soviet-occupied Estonia," with a footnote providing further detail. But I recognize this is a discussion and I'm open to hearing other perspectives. Seungsahn (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That ship has sailed since the three-part format (with SSR as middle part) was already established by the preceding RfC. Gawaon (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A, C, or E. per ModernDayTrilobite. Lithuanian SSR should be linked to provide context for those who seek it. Soviet Union is well-known enough that a link can be omitted to reduce consecutive linkage. Options F and G are too cumbersome and we'd probably need another RFC to decide on which (ad)verb exactly we should use (because it's foreseeable that someone will ask for the (ad)verb to be "occupied", like Xil already did above). We can avoid the whole (likely heated) debate about the question which (ad)verb describes the situation most accurate/neutral by simply not including an (ad)verb to begin with. Nakonana (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• F though none of the options listed adequately address the underlying WP:NPOV concern. All options A through E present "City, SSR, Soviet Union" as the primary framing, which implies a legitimacy that was explicitly rejected under international law for over 50 years. The Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized de jure by the United States, United Kingdom, and most Western democracies — a position maintained continuously from the Welles Declaration (1940) until independence was restored in 1991. Baltic diplomatic missions operated in Washington, London, and other capitals throughout the entire Soviet period. This is extensively documented at State continuity of the Baltic states. F at least gestures toward the complexity of the situation, but the most accurate and neutral formulation would acknowledge the occupation context directly — for example, "Tallinn, Soviet-occupied Estonia" - which reflects both de facto Soviet control and the de jure continuity recognized by the international community. An explanatory footnote (as in the separate Kaja Kallas RFC) would be a further improvement regardless of which display option is chosen, as it provides readers with the context needed to understand why this situation differs fundamentally from other Soviet republics such as the Ukrainian SSR or Belarusian SSR, whose incorporation into the USSR was internationally recognized. I also note that this RFC's scope is limited to linking style within an already-contested format. The broader question of whether "City, SSR, Soviet Union" is itself appropriate for the Baltic states — given their unique legal status — remains unresolved and warrants a dedicated RFC that explicitly addresses this distinction. Seungsahn (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The question asked in your last sentence was already answered by the previous RFC. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A or C or E. Lithuanian SSR should be linked; if that is linked, I don't think linking Soviet Union hurts or helps much. And if we are going to separate the blue links, it should be as short as possible. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• B:

1: Per WP:GEOLINK, the examples show only the first item of each list being linked. I propose the same be done here.

2: Also, we want to avoid MOS:OVERLINK. The more words are linked, the less likely each linked item is to be viewed. As such, links should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. I believe that only linking the first item here would be the best.

3: WP:INFOBOX states The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. I believe this is farther evidence that links should be used sparingly in the infobox, especially when it comes to location lists.

4: We should avoid unnecessary controversy when possible, and just listing the location avoids extra debates over phrases such as "then part", which are included in some of the other options.

Because B only links the first item here, I think we should apply this one.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the examples, the one for a former country, contains two links. -- Beland (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that it's required to be this way, but that it should be preferable. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• B or E, given MOS:GEOLINK. Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E I believe is an acceptable compromise. I've been reading the past discussions about this subject and as an uninterested (well, not really uninterested, just someone who doesn't have a vested interest in either decision) editor it seems that every RFC discussion has been closed with a very shaky consensus. This sometimes happens when non-wikipedia edtitors are interested in a subject and it is continually reopened and discussed. I believe that there are some users who are very invested and perhaps some that have broken rules. However, to me that indicates that there is a real issue that really needs to be solved with a grumble rather than one side "getting their way". I have also seen seasoned editors, I think even an admin, acting very strong armed and rude. I think they had lost their assumption of good faith from rule breakers and frustration. E is a good compromise because it addresses both of the sides' problems. It is accurate, in that the Baltics were commonly understood to be subunits of the Soviet Union, and it is thoughtful of modern opinions and historical precedent in those countries about the rejection of those states as units of the Soviet Union. I also believe it has precedent in Wikipedial, though I cannot find any specific examples which may weaken this point. I speak of "X from Y formerly known as Z". I vageuly remember this for countries such as Rhodesia or British India persons. Bluefist ^talk 23:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• E Probably works best here in terms of WP:GEOLINK. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is only about what to link. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why open this before Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question has concluded? Even that discussion you started parallel to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Baltic birth places and linking (initial post by me). This looks like WP:forum shopping. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My question at MOS:GEOLINK, was about what to link or not link. My questoin was not about altering the 2025 RFC decision or amending MOS:GEOLINK. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new discussion just because editors are unwilling to operate strictly within the parameters you've set, does not seem appropriate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not why I began this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And there was also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: How to link Baltic birth/death places, 1940 to 1991 which was shut down. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I shut it down per advice by @Szmenderowiecki:, as its scope covered (example:"then part of..." option) areas beyond just linkage. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a best-of-both-worlds solution, which should've been brought up in the December 2025 RfC.

Why don't ya'll just add both de jure identifiers and de facto identifiers, possibly with a note explaining the irregularities. For example, the birth place of Vilnius, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic should be changed to Vilnius, Lithuania (de jure)/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union (de facto), along with an explanatory note that Lithuania regained its de facto independence in 1990. The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania restored state continuity throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet occupation.

Proposed explanatory notes for use:

• Estonia: Estonia regained its de facto independence in 1991. Throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet occupation, Estonia's de jure state continuity was preserved by diplomatic representatives and the government-in-exile.
• Latvia: Latvia regained its de facto independence in 1991. The declaration On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia restored and asserted state continuity throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet occupation.
• Lithuania: Lithuania regained its de facto independence in 1991. The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania restored and asserted state.

Have a nice day.~2026-67161-8 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is not about explanatory notes at all. They can be used (or not) independently of its outcome. Gawaon (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EFNs are being discussed at Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: Footnote in infobox birthplace. I would say, though, that the "de jure" status is disputed. From the Soviet perspective, Lithuania was both de jure and de facto part of the Soviet Union. -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just crossposted my comment in there.~2026-67161-8 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I will be monitoring this discussion as an uninvolved administrator, following GoodDay's request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. GoodDay, I invite you to briefly read our RfC formatting guidelines, as the current format breaks the automatic transclusions. The RfC question should be signed (or at least timestamped with ~~~~~), and neutrally worded, without making references to policies or guidelines that might support some answers. These can be elaborated on separately, for example in an additional heading providing background context or in your own !vote. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made adjustments to the 'RFC question'. Would appreciate advice on wording. Should I keep or remove mention of the 2025 Dec RFC? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a bit of an adjustment to note1, which was kind of snarky; it still might be better if it was just removed and GoodDay put a vote with a rationale focused on the problem, or had a background about why this is an issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be snarky (the note), but I thank you for re-writing it. I would be grateful, if you'd re-do the questionaire. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding these options. Writing an initial !vote that explains your rationale is a common practice in RfCs, and so is the alternative of a standalone background section, separate from the RfC question. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in the earlier discussions I've linked above, an option "Panevėžys, then part of Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" should be included. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I explained above, why I didn't include that option. That option would've went beyond the scope of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier discussion, that option had some support, which is why it should be included. As explained to you already, the RFC did not specify a particular format, only that the SSR and Soviet Union should be included. This was confirmed by @Beland, who closed the RFC. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is about linkage. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is not neutral if the options are artificially limited. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The option you wanted included, was excluded because it went beyond the scope of this RFC, per advice from another editor. PS - If I'm given clearance to add your option? I will do so. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, there is a disagreement about the intended scope of the RfC. To make sure we're on the same page, do you both agree that this RfC aims to decide on specific details of the decision achieved at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes? And the disagreement is on whether this RfC addresses it in part (only being focused on the linking style) or in full, am I correct? Has there been prior discussion about how a follow-up RfC was to be structured? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree on the aim. If the choice of options is limited, then this RFC is only partial in that it does not address whether City, SSR, Soviet Union (with the preferred linking) or City, then part of SSR, Soviet Union (or some other variant) should be used. I am not aware of a prior discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add this following information for consideration. [9]

That shows how many times Estonia, Estonia SSR and Solviet Estonia are used in literature and period publications, by years.

I believe that it shows clear data, how in this example Estonia was used a lot lot more often than Estonia SSR and Solviet Estonia combined.

There have been many arguments about using period correct names, then this data should be one of main criteria choosing period correct name. Just because Estonia SSR was on map, does not mean it as a name was commonly used, as per linked data. Also judjing by period ussage using only Estonia SSR does does violate Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:UNDUE

There are also many other ways to show period correct status and modern day status, like in Crimea example. BerzinsJanis (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A previous RFC already decided which names to use. This RFC is just asking how they should be linked.-- Beland (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are new options in this RFC, so I assume, its only fair to add new data into considerations, especially since there were many arguments about common names in period. It just shows how poorly executed was last RFC. I will respect this RFC decision, but it doesn't mean, that this topic has consensus Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS and Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE BerzinsJanis (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to add the option the other editor wants. If given clearance to do so. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the RfC has just started and there hasn't been substantial voting yet, I am giving you clearance to do so. An alternate suggestion I may offer, although it is not a requirement, is to pause the voting and allow a few days for editors to suggest additional options, then restart the RfC anew. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional options have been requested. I'll add them in & notify the 'two' suryer commentors of the update. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beland has pointed out a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question, which brought forward additional options. Do you wish to either continue the conversation there, or use the current state of that conversation as a basis for the RfC options? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have it here, as I've added those options, too. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disingenuous. None of these options use the word occupied. If the USSR is mentioned at all, it should be "then occupied by the USSR". Otherwise, where are the options for simply Panevėžys, Lithuania?

Extremely biased "poll". ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The RFC options were framed in a way that excluded the most defensible neutral position from the start. Where is the option for simply "Panevėžys, Lithuania"? The United States and most Western democracies never recognized the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states - this wasn't some fringe position, it was the official legal stance maintained continuously from the Welles Declaration in 1940 until independence was restored in 1991. Baltic diplomatic legations operated in Washington throughout the entire Soviet period. Under this interpretation, which was held by the majority of Western nations, Lithuania never ceased to exist as a sovereign state. Excluding this option from the RFC while offering multiple variations of "Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" predetermined the outcome toward the Soviet/Russian legal interpretation.

The inconsistency with Wikipedia's treatment of other unrecognized entities makes this even more glaring. Wikipedia consistently uses "Richmond, Virginia" for people and institutions from the Confederate era (1861-1865), not "Richmond, Confederate States of America" - despite the Confederacy exercising de facto control at the time. If de facto control by an unrecognized breakaway government doesn't warrant changing location designations, why should de facto control by an unrecognized illegal annexation? The RFC should have included "Panevėžys, Lithuania" as an option, or at minimum "Panevėžys, Lithuania (then under Soviet occupation)" - which would acknowledge the historical reality without adopting the Soviet legal position that Western nations explicitly rejected for 50 years.

It's also worth noting that the previous RFC did not reach real consensus. The closure stated that Option A was "most popular" - but popularity is not consensus per WP:NOTAVOTE. The closer acknowledged "competing interpretations of neutrality, clarity, and accuracy," which indicates genuine disagreement on policy grounds rather than consensus. The arguments grounded in international law and WP:NPOV were never properly weighed against raw participation numbers. And the RFC was initiated by User:Glebushko0703 (now blocked), who had already made mass edits to "SSR" format before starting the RFC - hardly a neutral process. Building a new RFC on top of that flawed foundation doesn't fix the underlying problem. Seungsahn (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who opened an RfC as long as it was completed and closed property – which was the case here, confirmed by subsequent discussion, for all I know. So it's time to respectfully step away from the horse carcass and instead constructively work on filling out the details – which is what this RfC is doing. Gawaon (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion Seungsahn (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"A since it was under soviet rule"

Does this seem like a discussion to you? Is this vote as worthy as the others? Seungsahn (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Seugsahn: you should place your "A", in the survey subsection. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seungsahn should clarify, but I think they were quoting a vote from the 2025 RFC, rather than casting a vote in this one. Indrek (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs do not have to be "closed". They should stay open for as long as necessary to get an answer. If the answer is patently obvious, then nobody should waste time writing an official statement of what everyone else already knew. This is documented in WP:RFCEND. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Panevėžys, Lithuania" was ruled out by the RFC which is linked to from this RFC's introduction. -- Beland (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im amaised also at that, as the most neutral would be mentioned both entities and status at that time. Somehow such option is never considered or offered in survey. In fact you don't even need to search for USA examples when there are plenty here in Europe, with far less nuances and legality questions. Yet there are users who push for only solviet narative. BerzinsJanis (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest options that haven't been discussed yet. Note that a footnote that would explain the disputed status has already been proposed at Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: Footnote in infobox birthplace. WP:AGF requires that we assume other editors have non-nefarious reasons for doing what they do, even if we don't agree with their positions. Editors are allowed to have a specific point of view. When I collaborate with editors who challenge me because they come from a different point of view, if we work for understanding and look at reliable sources, articles come out with stronger sourcing and we create a version we all find fair and neutral. -- Beland (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about Crimea option? stating de-jure and de-facto control? Im shure there was extensive RFC for it.

Like "Internationally recognised as Latvia territory occupied by USSR (see State continuity of the Baltic states)"?? Add links where needed. Its neutral, it gives facts, and Baltic situation require it. But im shure there will be people who will talk about maps, de-facto controll, too much text and so one, jsut to keep solviet union there. BerzinsJanis (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the RFC was initiated by User:Glebushko0703 (now blocked), who had already made mass edits to "SSR" format before starting the RFC - hardly a neutral process. For an account that has been created a mere two days ago you are surprisingly familiar with wiki processes and things that happened months before your account creation. Nakonana (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if we could focus on the substance of the arguments rather than speculating about my account. The point stands: the RFC was initiated by a now-blocked user who had already made mass edits prior to starting it. Whether that concern is raised by a new account or an established editor doesn't change its validity. Seungsahn (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if there weren't massive news reports in the Baltic countries and reddit posts that tell people to come to those RfC and "control"* the English Wikipedia (*that word was used in at least one of the news articles). This violates WP:CANVASSING policies and is something that the closer of an RfC needs to be aware of (which you probably already know given your familiarity with wiki processes). You are also not the only new account in this RfC who doesn't have any contributions anywhere on Wikipedia outside the Baltic birth place question. Nakonana (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic birthplace is sensitive topic in Baltics, its a bit foolish to expect that there wont be any new editors, or reapearing ones when it has gained mainstream media attention in all 3 Baltic states. Like it or not, it will generate new editors, who will want to join topic and there is no way to figure out if they are here on there own wish, or someone asked them. BerzinsJanis (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot with this behavior. The more you push, the harder the pushback. This kind of behavior has even the potential to alienate people who'd usually be sympathetic towards you and your cause under different circumstances [10][11]. Nakonana (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And would your opinion would be in this matter? Please provide neutral opinion on this matter. One that could be acceptable for most.

Also RFC are not popularity contest, but argument based. BerzinsJanis (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide neutral opinion on this matter. One that could be acceptable for most. Then are you actually asking for my opinion if you only want to hear a "neutral" opinion? And why would a "neutral" opinion need to be one that is acceptable for most? A third party expert could give their neutral opinion in a court, but that neutral opinion may not be liked — neither by the accusing party nor by the accused party —, because the neutral opinion might come to the conclusion that both parties are in the wrong.

Note: I have already voted in the Survey section.

At this point I also note that you are a new account who doesn't have any edits outside the Baltic birthday question and who also appears to be quite familiar with wiki processes despite being a newbie. Nakonana (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since wikipedia is place for neutral data sharing, and pushing single point of view is against policies, you should probably re read wikipedia policies.

Ahh how nice, if you would have taken an deeper look at my account you would find that i have made really many policies mistakes at start, because i had no idea what Im doing. Lucly university student council role, did help me to adjust to speak more policy based than feeling based. And since we are pointing things out, I do wounder why you are so against term "Occupied" when it is internationaly recognised fact, see State continuity of the Baltic states, is it because by your own words, you are from russia? You are entitled to your opinion, but please here provide arguments for and/or against it. So far your opinion of rest of variants beeing to "cumbersome" does not hold to well against Crimea example and Im shure it had its own fights in RFC. BerzinsJanis (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed and expected to have non-neutral opinions. This is actually helpful because readers have non-neutral opinions, and it's necessary to look at any disputed topic from multiple perspectives in order to make sure that our text isn't taking a stand that any of them feel is non-neutral, and to make sure we're giving an overall fair description. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against "occupied" because this is not how those places are referred to most of the time when they are being talked about outside of the Baltic states themselves. Furthermore, several adverb have been suggested above, so simply for the sake of pragmatism, to not have another debate over which adverb is the most "accurate", most "neutral" one, I'd opt for an option that doesn't use any adverb at all, therefore my preferred phrasing would be "city, then part of xSSR, Soviet Union" with xSSR being a link to the corresponding article. This "then part of xSSR" is also the option that I've seen being used on German wiki for example, so it seems like a good middle ground. Nakonana (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also me being from Russia means I was born there. However, I have not lived there since the 1990s. Nakonana (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see.... So using simply Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania should be enought, since these were terms used to reffer to them outside strict political setting. So what are we going to do now? Now there are two terms used, unofficial common name and official used only in specific context.

As for being from russia, just an mention, like you mentioned my account age. All is fine ^^ BerzinsJanis (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RFC decided that Society Union should be included. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "pushing" or "causes" - it's about whether Wikipedia's treatment of the Baltic states complies with WP:NPOV given their unique legal status under international law. The arguments stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who makes them or how many people care about the issue.

Seungsahn (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. So, what BerzinsJanis asked of me above[12][13] is not necessarily what WP:NPOV means. Nakonana (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about WP:CANVASSING, those should be raised through the appropriate channels, not used to dismiss arguments in this discussion. The same could be said about the original RFC - there was documented off-wiki canvassing on both sides, including editors who were later blocked. None of this changes the substantive point: the RFC was initiated by a now-blocked user who had already made mass edits, and the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law remains inadequately addressed.

As for new accounts engaging with this topic - the Baltic birthplace issue has recieved significant media coverage recently, which naturally draws attention from people who care about accurate historical representation. New editors becoming aware of Wikipedia discussions through news coverage and choosing to participate is not inherently improper. I'm here making policy-based arguments supported by verifiable sources. If those arguments are wrong, I welcome a substantive rebuttal. Seungsahn (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm doing is an appropriate way to address canvassing issues per WP:MEAT: In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion. I'm not aware of canvassing regarding the original RfC. The now blocked user was blocked for personal attacks iirc, not for canvassing.

status of the Baltic states under international law remains inadequately addressed. — why does it need addressing by the English Wikipedia though? Crimea also currently has a status of it not being accepted as legit part of Russia, yet wiki Commons is currently applying Russian freedom of panorama laws on contributions from Crimea instead of the more restrictive Ukrainian freedom of panorama laws. Wiki p rojects don't always do what you expect (or demand) them to do. Nakonana (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to remind that RFC is not a popularity contest and actual voting is discoridged if possible. Also if you look at Crimea info box you will find this text "Internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia (see Political status of Crimea)" claiming that Crimea is accepted by Wikipedia as being part of russia, is clear missinformation and pushing single point of view. BerzinsJanis (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about wiki Commons[14][15][16]. Nakonana (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:MEAT - noted, but these comments are in a discussion shaping a new RFC, not a vote. Arguments here should be evaluated on their merits regardless of account age.

On "why does it need addressing" - because this is literally what this discussion is for. We're here to shape a new RFC on Baltic bios infoboxes. If the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law isn't relevant to that RFC, what is? The Crimea/Commons example doesn't establish that Wikipedia should ignore internationally recognized legal distinctions - WP:NPOV is a core policy of this project and applies regardless of what other Wikimedia projects do. Seungsahn (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this RfC doesn't need to be "shaped", it's already well underway and will have an outcome of some kind. Gawaon (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would the following not be neutral enough? Considering the Baltic states were de-jure existing throughout the occupation.

- Panevėžys, Soviet-occupied Lithuania ~2026-57214-4 (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: I moved the IP's post to 'here', as it was located above the 'survey' sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Noting that this is a follow-up to the previous RfC, which offered a "Panevėžys, Lithuania" option. There was consensus there that "Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" was preferable, and the current RfC is only to figure out the specific linking and wording to implement that option. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know this RFC covers Baltics bios, only. But I'm hoping whatever is decided here, will be applied to bios of all people born and/or died in all 15 Soviet republics. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC) IMHO, this "not a vote" notice should be deleted, as it may cause tensions. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

I've moved your comment to the discussion section, to not have it above the RfC question itself. Not commenting on the merits of the suggestion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would make a lot of sense, unless options F or G are chosen. (They would be inapplicable to other SSRs.) Gawaon (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic states in solviet union are a bit special (They were never part of it de jure and almost no state recognised there occupation) compared to other solviet republics, to whom you can make arguments about there legality in solviet union. Trying to push for the same solution seams ood at the best, pushing some narative at the worst. BerzinsJanis (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In principle yes, but it depends on the chosen option. A to E would work equally well for all. Gawaon (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From offered variants I say F is the best then E. Im still amaised why there are no offers like Latvia, then occupied by solviet union. Especially since no one disputes the occupation fact, and only few countries in the world recognised it. BerzinsJanis (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option E, would be better suited for the 'body' of the bio, IMHO. Options F & G are a mess. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BerzinsJanis. The Baltic states represent a unique case that cannot be treated identically to other Soviet republics. Unlike the Ukrainian SSR, Belarusian SSR, or other constituent republics, the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was never recognized de jure by the majority of Western nations.

Applying the same infobox format used for republics whose Soviet status was internationally recognized to countries whose annexation was explicitly deemed illegal creates a false equivalence and raises serious WP:NPOV concerns. The RFC did not adequately grapple with this distinction, and treating the Baltic situation as identical to other SSRs does appear to advance a particular historical narrative rather than reflect the nuanced international legal reality. Seungsahn (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltics aren't special, IMHO. But of course, you & I won't likely ever agree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of opinion or what either of us personally believes. The non-recognition of the Baltic annexation is a documented historical and legal fact.

The Baltic states kept functioning diplomatic missions in Western capitals throughout the Soviet period. This distinct legal status is extensively documented in the article State continuity of the Baltic states and is not comparable to the status of other Soviet republics. Whether the Baltics are "special" isn't a matter of IMHO - it's a matter of verifiable historical record. Seungsahn (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to agree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't addressed the substantive point. The distinct legal status of the Baltic states isn't something we need to "agree" on - it's documented fact supported by decades of international state practice and extensive reliable sources. If you believe this documented historical record is incorrect or irrelevant to the infobox question, I'd welcome a policy-based argument explaining why. Simply stating we won't agree doesn't engage with the WP:NPOV concerns raised.

This was precisely the problem with the original RFC - these substantive legal and historical distinctions were never adequately addressed, with participants instead treating it as a matter of preference rather than policy. I'll leave it to other editors to evaluate the arguments presented here. Seungsahn (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor has their own interpretations. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states by most Western nations for fifty years is not an "interpretation" - it is documented historical fact. Interpretations vary; the historical record does not. Seungsahn (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're bringing up arguments, that have already been made. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments being previously raised is not the same as arguments being adequately addressed. Throughout this discussion, you have responded to documented historical facts with "IMHO," "we won't agree," and "each editor has their own interpretations" - none of which engage with the substantive policy concerns raised. With respect, if the response to sourced, verifiable facts is simply to express personal opinion without policy-based counterargument, I'm not sure continued participation in this discussion is productive. I remain open to hearing an actual rebuttal to the points raised about the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law. Seungsahn (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not being able to agree that Baltic states were illegaly occupied by solviet union. You should not take part of decision for this topic. If this is you stance, then you are directly pushing solviet union point of view!!! BerzinsJanis (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not being able to agree [...] You should not take part of decision for this topic. This is not how Wikipedia works. Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, its is not my opinion, but internationaly recognised fact that have its own wikipedia article State continuity of the Baltic states its the fact that should be taken in account for this discussion. If an editor simply wants to ignore it, or pretend its not a well documented fact, the said editor should not take part in a discussion where its an important point.

My understanding, is that wikipedia aims to provide netural accurate information, ignoring important facts, or making missleading comments (not aimed at editor at question) about them is definetly not how Wikipedia should work. BerzinsJanis (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Britannica is pro-Soviet/Russian because it says Mikhail Baryshnikov was born in the USSR.[17] Mellk (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is not bound by WP:NPOV. What other encyclopedias choose to do is not a policy-based argument for what Wikipedia should do. The point remains: the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized de jure by most Western nations, which distinguishes them from other Soviet republics. This distinction has not been addressed. Seungsahn (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point is we have our own manual of style, just like Britannica has its own manual of style. Mellk (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case these people for example shouls have there birth place changed to city, Nazi Germany, since they all were born in place while under Nazi Germany occupation.

Tatyana Adamovich

Anatoly Glushenkov

Vasily Shuteyev

Vasily Melnikov

Wikipedia manual of styles is quite flexible, but some users are pushing for quite narrow interpretation of it. BerzinsJanis (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes of some biographies already mention Nazi German occupation (e.g. Miloš Zeman). That does not mean we endorse Nazi Germany's actions. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you raised these biographies in good faith, I would expect Wikipedia to treat people born in an occupied territory during a hot war quite differently to people who were born in an occupied state during a far more protracted cold war. But I would also expect those biographies to mention something in the body text along the lines of “Early life: X was born in Y Oblast in 1942, while the territory was under Nazi occupation.” — HTGS (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that births and deaths during the first Soviet occupation (1940-1941), or during the second Soviet occupation but before the end of the war (1944-1945), should be treated differently from those after the war, between 1945 and 1990/1991? Indrek (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving a rationale for why Nazi occupation might be sensibly treated differently to an enduring Soviet occupation. As for the initial Soviet occupation, I don’t have a good answer to that, and I could see good reasons to go both ways. And I am very much not an expert, so it’s probably best that I don’t take too strong a stance on the specific. — HTGS (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I raised them to show that there is currently no consistently applied style, for example Tatyana Adamovich doesnt even mention Solviet union, just Russia. While Anatoly Glushenkov mentions birth place as both Russia and Solviet union.

This sugest there is no single practice across bibliograpfies. Before imposing a single style to Baltic states it would be helpfull to clarify what are principles to for such cases.

Additionally, common English-language usage appears to differ significantly (see Ngram data comparing “Estonia”, “Soviet Estonia”, and “Estonian SSR”) (Latvia and Lithuania show the same tendencies) which may be relevant under Wikipedia:COMMONNAME considerations. BerzinsJanis (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are incomplete and imperfect. Is a consistently applied style not what we are working towards here? That is why I suggested the differentiation between temporary and extended occupations.

I don’t personally see how that ngram data is useful here, but maybe I’m missing something. — HTGS (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the Ngram data for the same reason I raised the other examples, to show that there is no same applied style, and that actual language usage differs.

Ngram is relevant under WP:COMMONNAME because it reflects how terms are used in english sources over time. If the data shows that Estonia is used far more frequently than Soviet Estonia or Estonian SSR (and Latvia and Lithuania show the same pattern), this suggests that usage of these countries are generally used by their state name rather than by the Soviet name.

That seems relevant when we are discussing how to describe birth places or political entities in biographies. If the wast majority of English language sources use one form, that should at least be considered before imposing a single uniform style that forces to use only Soviet qualifiers while at the same time removing any other names.

Ngram is not proof on its own, but it does provide evidence of usage. If we are aiming for consistency, it would be helpfull to first clarify what principles/rulles we are applying COMMONNAME, usage in reliable sources orand tother info, rather than standardising one formula only for selected cases.

And honestly I do not understand this reasoning behind wish to keep only solviet names while excluding modern names. It seems like a really narrow application of policies. There are many examples on wikipedia where naming follows common usage rather than strict historical odities, so it is unclear why in this case policies are interpreted so narrowly. BerzinsJanis (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That we use "Estonian SSR" etc. in infoboxes in these cases has already been decided in an earlier RfC. You continually act as if you don't know that, but of course you do. Gawaon (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was previous RFC about this and that it supported using Estonian SSR in infoboxes. I am not saying it did not happen. But that RFC had a lot of problems, and I think policy was applied in too narrow way there.

My point is not to ignore the result, but to question if it really follows WP:COMMONNAME and how english sources write. If most sources simply use Estonia much more often than Estonian SSR, then that should at least be looked at, at some point.

Consensus is not something fixed. It can change. Im saying that maybe the policies were read too strictly in that discussion, and that in many other cases on Wikipedia naming follows common usage, not only strict historical wording.

This can be discussed again in future. Right now I am just pointing out problems with it and asking what rules we are really following here COMMONNAME, usage in sources, or just keeping old decision no matter what.

If there are no problems with the previous reasoning, then it would be helpful to explain why these concerns do not apply. BerzinsJanis (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There were at least 3 attempts to overturn that RfC, all failed. "Consensus can change" is not a defence for refusing to accept the consensus that has been found. Maybe after a few years have passed and if new information has been provided (unlikely since the issue was thoroughly discussed before, but who knows), the RfC decision will be revisited and possibly revised, but for now you would show more respect for your fellow-editors and their precious time by accepting the consensus as it stands and not venturing off-topic into already settled questions all the time. Gawaon (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the challenges were mine from earlier when I did not know any better, so those can be set aside. That leaves one chalange.

My point is: how exactly were WP:COMMONNAME and actual English language usage weighed in that decision? What policies were folowed here.

Im not ignoring RFC, im asking for policy based explenation why ngram data is not applicalbe and policy based ansver why such narrow rules (use only x SSR, Solviet union), for infobox are imposed. If the matter is considdered fully settled, then it would not be difficult for you to not mind give brief policy based explenation, how (ngram) data shows that, for exmaple, Estonia is used far more frequently in English language sources than Estonian SSR or Soviet Estonia — was evaluated and why that evidence was considered insufficient under WP:COMMONNAME and why its forbidden to use both modern and old names, when thats done in wast majority of rest of eroupes infoboxes. BerzinsJanis (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC didn't address article titles, only the infobox. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have identified several problems with Google Ngram, WP:NGRAM. Not saying they all apply to this discussion, but we should be wary of using Google Ngram in general. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While it is problematic, many of said problems should not reflect on 1939 to 1991 period. No new self published books can be added to it, and most UN protocols will use solviet name schema. It however does show, even with its all problems, that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were common names, even if say only half of data is accurate, they still are in common usage and should not be ignored. BerzinsJanis (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing it. If you want to try overturn that settled RfC, you may take it to the admins, but this is not the place to have that discussion. Gawaon (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify, admins do not have additional power around starting or overturning RfCs. However, such a discussion is still off-topic here, and should be held in a separate thread, if at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry if I spread misinformation. My understanding is that CLOSECHALLENGEs for RfCs go to the Administrators' noticeboard, hence the reference to admins. My understand this also that this has already happened in this case (and the closure was upheld). Gawaon (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's accurate! It's an administrative matter, although from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) participation isn't limited to admins only. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BerzinsJanis WP:COMMONNAME is policy for how we name articles. If you want to rename Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, then you should discuss doing so at that article’s talk page. (I do not recommend doing so.) Otherwise I don’t see much relevance for common name or Ngrams here. You should try to stay on topic, to avoid disrupting the discussion at hand. — HTGS (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to the Manual of Style. As I understand it, MOS:Biography "Birth date and place" section does NOT specifically address what to do when a birth country was under illegal occupation that was never recognized de jure by most Western nations. In the absence of specific guidance, WP:NPOV should take precedence. Seungsahn (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It also says Dalia Grybauskaitė was born in the USSR.[18] Somehow there is only outrage at Wikipedia. Mellk (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica doesn't actually list only Soviet Union, it has both countries listed. --~~Xil (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk Your reasons why did you choose to not include that fact? for the reference link to mentioned article BerzinsJanis (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are referring to where it says "now Vilnius, Lithuania"? But per the infobox documentation we do not include the modern-day location. Mellk (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the Soviet Union did not agree that its annexation was illegal, even if it was not recognized by its enemies. That non-recognition is objectively true, but the fact that the Soviet Union administered these territories is also objectively true. Pointing out the fact of Soviet control is not a moral endorsement of that act, it's an important piece of context our readers need to know. The task here is I think to represent the unusual situation concisely and with regard to due weight. -- Beland (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - this is a fair point and I appreciate the substantive engagement. I don't dispute that Soviet control is relevant context. My argument isn't that Soviet administration should go unmentioned, but that presenting Baltic birthplaces in the same "City, SSR, Soviet Union" format as other republics implies a legitimacy that was explicitly rejected under international law. The occupation itself is also an important piece of context our readers need to know - and the "SSR, Soviet Union" format obscures rather than communicates that. A format like "Tallinn, Soviet-occupied Estonia" would acknowledge the de facto Soviet control while also reflecting the de jure continuity that most Western nations maintained, and would accurately convey to readers that this was an occupation, not an ordinary administrative arrangement. This seems more consistent with WP:NPOV. Seungsahn (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we only interested in the positions of "Western nations" anyway? The US-led bloc also recognized "Captive Nations". Mellk (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can respond to the survey and advocate that option. There is also another RFC that asks if we should accomplish the same goal with an explanatory footnote. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's other birth/death places of bio infoboxes, that include other former countries, like Yugoslavia & Czechoslovakia. But, that's for down the line. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the position I've outlined in this discussion: the Baltic states occupy a unique position under international law. Their Soviet annexation was never recognized de jure by most Western nations for fifty years, they maintained diplomatic missions throughout the occupation, and this is extensively documented in our own article State continuity of the Baltic states. This fundamentally distinguishes them from other Soviet republics and means applying an identical infobox format raises serious WP:NPOV concerns. The original RFC did not adequately address this distinction. I note that throughout this discussion, these substantive arguments have not been engaged with. The responses I've received have consisted of personal opinions ("IMHO," "we won't agree," "each editor has their own interpretations"), questions about my account age, references to what other Wikimedia projects do, and suggestions that raising these concerns constitutes "pushing." Not once has anyone provided a policy-based rebuttal explaining why the documented legal status of the Baltic states is irrelevant to how Wikipedia presents their history in infoboxes.I believe any new RFC on this topic must explicitly address this legal distinction rather than treating the Baltic states as identical to other Soviet republics. I'll leave this on the record for the RFC framers and closers to consider.Seungsahn (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Gigman is no longer blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about state continuity in the Baltics was in fact made in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes, so I don't see how it could be considered that they haven't been "adequately engaged with". I think it would be more fair to say the choices there were somewhat binary, but that's why participant suggested adding a footnote and that triggered a followup RFC, and that's also why "administered by" etc. are choices offered in this RFC. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Their Soviet annexation was never recognized de jure by most Western nations for fifty years — just out of curiosity: what about non-Western nations? Nakonana (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminding everyone that this discussion is not the place to rehash arguments about the previous RfC, and that such continued back-and-forth may be seen as disruptive by other editors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have collapsed the "vote" above by Seungsahn. Every comment and response by them has been LLM generated and cannot be engaged with in earnesty. Though I am leaving up comments already there with substantial engagement. Seungsahn, if you want to contribute here do so in your own voice; we are not here to entertain undisclosed chatbots. Gotitbro (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any proof these comments are LLM-generated? I don't think they are. sapphaline (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The bioler plate LLM cruft was clear as day. To further verify I checked the responses at GPTZero, Undetectable.ai, Copyleaks among others. He verdict is pretty clear for dishonest LLM usage and I am afraid this cannot be engaged with earnestly. Gotitbro (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  LLM-detection tools aren't an ironclad proof, or proof at all. sapphaline (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure but we do not need 100% "ironclad proof". When you have enough experience dealing with LLM cruft and the biolerplate nonsense and hallucinations generated by them, you can substantially tell when that is the case as here. And when multiple tools and judgment tell me that is the case, it becomes pretty clear what has been done. WP:MANDY of course can never be defence for editors employing LLMs and then denying them. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You obviously don't have enough experience dealing with LLM cruft. Your gut feeling is no proof at all. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You may refuse to see what is clearly there in front of everyone others won't, that the editor in question is still running around with boilerplate LLM cruft is all that needs to be said about this. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Im shure you are aware that there might be false positives. No LLM or group of LLM can be 100% correct about detecting LLM. BerzinsJanis (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro: I wrote the comments myself. Accusing other editors of using AI without evidence is not constructive and borders on a personal attack per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. So far most of the responses to my contributions have been personal accusations (that my account is too new, that I'm using an LLM), rather than any engagement with the substance of my arguments. If you disagree with my position, address the policy reasoning. Please uncollapse my comment. Seungsahn (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Highlighting dishonest LLM usage is not a personal attack, neither is noting a new user (though I did not point this out at all) handily wading through contentious topics and obscure noticeboards all the while using LLMs, especially when that user is coming from recent sanctions. If you do not come with clean hands do not expect others to not be wary. Gotitbro (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  AI detectors have well-known problems with false positives, especially for non-native English speakers - e.g. this Stanford study [1] found they misclassified over 61% of essays by non-native speakers as AI-generated. You've now collapsed two of my comments without once engaging with what I actually said. Please address the arguments or leave my comments alone.

  [1] https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-detectors-biased-against-non-native-english-writers Seungsahn (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would obviously waste no time in engaging with chatbot responses. Do non-native speakers also generate bulleted, essay, flowy responses exactly like ChatGPT [19], do non-native speakers also make unabated use of em dashes exactly like LLMs, do non-native speakers also show very proficient familiarity with enwiki policies (though of course without knowing how they actually apply as LLMs do not know one thing from the next) despite barely beginning to edit. If the answer to all of that is no, which it is, you should know that absolutely no one is buying the MANDY here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently someone reverted you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro: I don't think an RFC is the proper place to 'claim' someone is using LLMs. If you're convinced someone is using LLMs? then your concern should be brought to administrators. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Other editors should fully know when subjected to LLM cruft, the exact reason we make no consideration of AI generated nonsense for consensus (e.g. RfC) and templates like {{Collapse AI}} exist. An ongoing discussion is the most apt place to being it, sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As the discussion moderator, I believe the original !vote should be left intact – it will the responsibility of the closer to judge how relevant it is to the conversation, and to weigh or discount it appropriately. However, @Seungsahn is reminded that conversations should not be bludgeoned, and that relitigating an already closed RfC can easily verge into disruptive editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted, thanks. Seungsahn (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Seungsahn should also be reminded that Wikipedia does "de facto", not "de jure". The problem with de jure is that it's inherently not WP:NPOV: it depends whose jus you go by. However much we might not like it the fact is that the Baltic States were incorporated into the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world did nothing about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunetly its not always the case see info box Crimea, also there are multiple policies as use modern names and geolinks and others that give some choice in this matter. And that assuming that every article follows them. While I would prefere using only Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as places of birth, there are good arguments to use them with solviet union, hell there are good argument to not use solviet union liek Names Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were commonly used terms link to 1989 news video and not Latvia sssr or solviet union. The biggest problem is that many editors does not want to discuss what showing only solviet union is damaging to Baltic states. Including usage of LLM that harvest data from here. I believe such details about occupation are important to include in info box, or in its foot note. Im more than willing to discuss how it should look like, i'm willing to make compromises to it. BerzinsJanis (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I am aware of that. However ignoring the fact that a significant and well-documented dispute exists is not informative for the reader.

  As for "the rest of the world did nothing about it" – that's not accurate. Most Western countries maintained non-recognition of the annexation for the entire occupation, the Baltic states kept functioning diplomatic missions throughout, and the Welles Declaration was never rescinded. Seungsahn (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Inserting WP:COATRACK mentions of disputes into tangential places is not informing the reader, it is pushing a viewpoint. CMD (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a mainstream "viewpoint" not some random factoid, it would be WP:DUE to reflect it --~~Xil (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a million mainstream viewpoints behind every link on this article. If the viewpoint of the footnote is so extraordinarily mainstream that the way the link itself is written is misrepresentative, then we should reinvestigate whether we should rewrite it. — HTGS (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not aware of any policy that favors de facto over de jure. When there's a mismatch between the two, deciding whether to ignore one or neither comes down to how important and relevant the discrepancy is, and policies like WP:DUE. Hardly any laws are fully followed or even fully enforced, and when that matters (and shows up in reliable sources) we should say so. For example, Legality of cannabis maps out where laws are enforced, where they are not enforced, and where recreational use is legal. But on Free trade area and List of countries by tariff rate we don't mention smuggling, even though it's a way of de facto bypassing tariffs. -- Beland (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. The RFC is approaching its end & when the template expires? I'll be heading to WP:Closure requests. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set end to RFCs. They end when editors have stopped discussing and !voting. You can stop the bot from removing the rfc tag. WP:RFCEND: To extend a current RfC for another 30 days, and to prevent Legobot from automatically ending the RfC during the next month, insert a current timestamp immediately before the original timestamp of the opening statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would really advise against extending this RFC. Participants are just repeating arguments that have already been made, and the usual 30 days have been long enough to get a good sampling of opinion. We need to come to resolution on this so we can free volunteer time for other article improvements. -- Beland (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let a fearless closer have fun with this one once the template is expired. I deeply admire the brave people who dare to close such tricky issues. Gawaon (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the work I have done, using tables on English Wikisource, I have found their s:Template:Table style and associated CSS extremely useful.

I think we should import the template, and styles, and usurp our little-used {{ts}} redirect, to match what is done there.

Would there be support? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with class="wikitable"? sapphaline (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "wrong" with it; but it doesn't do what {{ts}} does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks extremely cryptic to me. If this gets attention from the sort of people who like to do things like rename "Template:Ts" to "Template:Table style", I expect they'd not like the resulting wikitext that would look like {| class="wikitable" {{ts|ar|vtb|pr2}}. Anomie⚔ 13:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear how such hypothetical disruption is relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing We also have {{table}} for simplifying the CSS options. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that doesn't seem to be usable for styling rows, or individual cells. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There will be a Wikimedia Café meetup on 7 March 2026 at 15:00 UTC, focusing on the Wikimedia Commons mobile app. Featured guests will be software developers User:Misaochan and User:RitikaPahwa4444, and Wiki Project Med chair User:Doc James. Please see the Café page for more information, including how to attend. ↠Pine (✉) 06:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List for reference

I'm nearly certain this isn't the right place for this, but I don't know where else I could bring this up. My apologies.

Despite only having 188 active users, 7 admins, and a depth of 2, the wikipedia for a language I hadn't heard of until now has twice the amount of articles as the german wikipedia.

Is this the result of lazy translation? A handful of filipinos somehow more dedicated than a few thousand germans? another Scots Wikipedia situation? My desire for closure must be fulfilled mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because Lsjbot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some hints at Cebuano Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles, but not a lot of content: for my village there's location (from geonames.org) and climate (from NASA), full stop. Look at an en.wiki article and follow through to its ceb.wiki parallel to see. PamD 08:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any statistics on total size of different wikis in terms of words, rather than articles? I suspect Cebuano would plummet down the ranking, from the couple of articles I've looked at. Its "Zebra" is one unsourced paragraph, not by Lsjbot. PamD 08:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about total size, but for other stats you will see Cebuano Wikipedia essentially does not rank; e.g. edits per article (en.wiki averages nearly 200; other major languages such as French and German are about half that; Cebuano averages only six - ahead only of Mazanderani wikipedia) or by featured article count (en.wiki has nearly 7000, or about 1% of articles; fr.wiki and de.wiki have a slightly smaller proportion of articles featured; ceb.wiki has only 26 and apparently no formal review process). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also this article on Vice and this article on (Australian) abc. Long is the way (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else wondering what 'depth' means, see here. That page doesn't really explain itself well, but if I'm reading the formula correctly, it's roughly the average number of edits per article, with some adjustments. I could very well be misunderstanding, though. ~2026-12499-02 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lsjbot. That one bot has created hundreds of thousands of articles there. There might be others too; that is the most prominent one. ~2026-12511-25 (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This map is available on the official website of UT of Lakshadweep. https://lakshadweep.gov.in/about-lakshadweep/lakshadweep-map/ Since this cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use, can someone (probably, Inkscape experts) create a free equivalent and upload to Wikimedia?
Anish Viswa 11:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:GL or commons:WP:GL might be better placed to handle such a request. Or just use File:Map of Lakshadweep-en.svg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I learned from Wikipedia:Images from social media, or elsewhere#Facebook, a Facebook photo with comment from the creator such as "I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence" would be allowed to upload to Wikimedia Commons. I previously did so, but I can't archive the page in Wayback, and archive.today used to work. What can I do? The original comment of the licence statement is there, but as it is from Meta, I have no idea how to save it in case it (or the Facebook account, the original post etc., the source in general) disappears in the future. I mean, if the original source of licence statement is really gone, wouldn't someone regard such license to be invalid and request to delete the file? - George6VI (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a process at Commons for having an admin or other trusted volunteer verify that the photo was indeed released under the claimed license. See c:Commons:License review. Basically, upload the image, make sure the documentation is all correct, and then slap {{LicenseReview}} on it. (It's even possible that the UploadWizard will add this template for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the page, but for now I am still not a reviewer, while it seems like I am eligible to use the template only when I am in the said user group. (Or it doesn't?) Is there a way to submit the review request, did I miss something? - George6VI (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's one template for ordinary users like us to use, which requests that the correct people review it. When those people review it, they use a different template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is it like I adding {{LicenseReview}} to the file I wish for the request, and someone of reviewers may come later? - George6VI (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it should work. Gawaon (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

megalodon.jp can archive Facebook posts, much more efficiently than archive.todah. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it works, thanks. - George6VI (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostarchive also works, albeit in "Noscript" mode. sapphaline (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a bunch of the letters on the side of the birthday globe seem to switch/turn into other letters. Is this intentional? Or is this just a side effect in animation? Or maybe it's AI generated? Theeverywhereperson talk here 17:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theeverywhereperson, yes the letters changing are one of Baby Globe's quirks. The shifting glyphs are part of how Baby Globe expresses itself, like when listening to music, dreaming or taking pictures. No AI involved, all the art and animation was done by humans. You can learn more about the Wikimedian who came up with the original sketch here! EBlackorby-WMF (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've published this post on the talk page for the German dialects category. Can someone answer it? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky has two city classes - home-rule, and first class. The main difference between the two is governance, first class cities must have a mayor-council government, while home-rule class cities have more choices, though often still choose to have a mayor-council government. Beyond this, there are little differences that are made from a city just being classified as first-class or home-rule. It is also important to note that the only first-class city in Kentucky is Louisville, which is disproportionately larger than all of the other cities.

However, for some reason, almost every single article about cities in Kentucky mentions the class of the city in the first sentence of the article. Is it really necessary for city class to be the first thing mentioned about a city, when it has little actual impact? Imagine if every article about cities in America had 'This city is smaller than New York" in the lead. My best guess for why this is the case is that city class used to actually be important, as before 2015 there were 6 different city classes, and there were many different laws that were specific to different city classes. Now, however, city class isn't anywhere near as important, so I believe we should move talking about city class later into these articles. Since this would be a decently large change that would affect a lot of articles, I wanted to talk about it with several other editors. Please provide any input you have, I would like to hear what other people have to say.

I am a new editor, so I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this. I didn't think it would fit in any specific Kentucky city talk section, so I put it here. Map Enjoyer (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Map Enjoyer. I think you might get more responses from editors familiar with that issue by posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky. Schazjmd (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Kentucky has a wikiproject? Cool, I can join the other 2.5 people in this state on wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know Map Enjoyer (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that in the very bottom of the English Wikipedia site, there is now a "Legal & safety contacts" link. Archives say that it wasn't there before. When was this added? HyperAnd (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the middle of December, as announced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At Miscellany for Deletion, we are seeing several alternate history pages each week, usually having to do with elections, sometimes for President of the United States, usually describing different results in the past, or sometimes describing future results. Sometimes they are in draft space, and more often they are in user space, either on user pages or on user subpages. They always get deleted for various reasons. Often they are by editors who are otherwise non-contributors, and so are web hosting by non-contributors, which is no longer U5, but Wikipedia is not a web host is still a policy, so they can be deleted after discussion and are deleted after discussion. Occasionally they are by users who are otherwise here to edit constructively, but they should be and are deleted anyway, sometimes citing Wikipedia is not for things made up. If they are set in the future, they are crystal balling. Often they use the names or images of living persons, in which case they are also BLP violations.

I have an open-ended question, and a request. About five years ago, when there previously were a moderate number of alternate history pages at MFD, I wrote an essay, Wikipedia is not for alternate history. The request is for other editors to improve the essay. I would then like to upgrade it to the status of a guideline. We are deleting the alternate history, but there is enough of it so that a special guideline about it would be useful. The open-ended question is whether anyone else has any ideas about dealing with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these being brought to MFD at all? Even if you're not willing to wait six months for them to be U7's (or don't consider them to be "creative or persuasive writing", which they may well not be), as described they sound like they should all be speedyable as G3's for being obvious misinformation. IIRC one of the motivating examples for expanding G3 to explicitly include hoaxes was an article about a war that "had" started the day after the article's creation, so a user subpage describing the results of a future election should qualify. Deliberately-incorrect results of past elections definitely do. —Cryptic 03:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In an nontrivial number of cases, users have sprinkled language in their drafts (like adding the word "hypothetical") which pushes them just over the edge into technically not being a hoax, so they can't be speedily deleted under current policy. It's frustrating, especially since it seems to be deliberate. Omphalographer (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 87#Alternate History in Sandboxen was just archived off this page, shortly after this new section was started. The only debate seems to be over userspace sandbox pages by established users, which apparently a few people want to be able to blanket-delete rather than considering whether established users experimenting with layout or the like using clearly marked fictional content is ok. IMO your time would be better spent focusing on the people actually WP:NOTHERE instead of trying to stretch PaG and create new PaG to justify going after established editors. If it's not going to be WP:U6 or WP:U7 eventually, slap a {{User sandbox}} or the like on it if you're worried someone would really think "User:Example/sandbox" is somehow an actual article and move on. Anomie⚔ 12:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption but noticed that the last three inquiries, dating back to mid-May last year, haven't received any responses. Wondering whether that page is even actively monitored by anyone with answers, I looked back at the latest archive, which covers the period from January 2022, and found there had been three users who'd been answering a number of inquiries each: User:Xaosflux, User:Risker, and User:Zzuuzz. I'm not writing this to scold them—every one of us is of course a volunteer and, even within the context of our active participation on the project, our focuses can change—only to see if any of them might still be available to take a look at the latest entries. My intent here is to advertise that there have been inquiries seeking attention, to see if anyone qualified to respond to them might be interested in doing so. Largoplazo (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a documentation discussion page, not a workflow page - thus the low engagement. It doesn't seem like there is much use of the page for its primary purpose: discussing improvements to the associated project page. Feel free to put a hatnote on it that for actual help with a block, pages such as Help:I have been blocked may be more useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Project pages (unlike articles) are ordinarily also where people ask for clarification and guidance regarding the policies and guidelines the page is about. Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 comments probably are a commentary on the policy page, even though most seem to have answered or figured it out their own situations themselves. Users like the 3 mentioned tend to have watchlists numbering tens of thousands of pages, plus a thousand things to do, so it's easy for something to slip by. I'll see if I can add acquiring some inspiration for some policy wordsmithing to my todo list, though that's something open to everyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sounds good! Largoplazo (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wrongly assumed about WP:WikiProject Biography, WP:WikiProject Women artists, WP:WikiProject Actors and filmmakers, and so forth when I tried labelling them as "semi-active". Difference between activities of WikiProject talk pages and (somewhat?) active editing of related articles meeting any of these scopes? Or...? George Ho (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What defines “activity” for a Wikiproject? Is it discussion, feedback and coordination at the project page level, or is it editing and collaboration at article level? A lot of our Wikiproject pages are essentially moribund… yet the articles under the project’s banner are actively edited. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What defines “activity” for a Wikiproject? Is it discussion, feedback and coordination at the project page level, or is it editing and collaboration at article level?

I did judge the WikiProject activity primarily based on amount of responses in their talk pages. Too bad my efforts to label them as "semi-active" were reverted by SNUGGUMS and pburka. I was gonna discuss this with the former, but the latter also made one of the reverts. Thus, I'm discussing "activity" criteria here. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of our Wikiproject pages are essentially moribund: If they can't be labelled as "semi-active", then how else can these "moribund" WikiProjects be handled? Reconstruct the pages, broaden the scopes, or...? George Ho (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A revert can be a sign of activity in itself. The idea that editing of pages within a Wikiproject's scope means the Wikiproject itself is active is symbolic of the decline of Wikiprojects as a whole, from actual communities/hubs to a glorified tagging system. CMD (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Assumption that editing the pages that meet] a Wiki[P]roject's scope [makes] the Wiki[P]roject itself [...] active [exemplifies] the decline of Wikiprojects as a whole, from actual communities/hubs to a glorified tagging system.

Copyedited most of the quoted content for ya. ;)

In any case, shall I then ping SNUGGUMS and pburka, both who reverted my relabelling them? George Ho (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, why have WikiProjects' talk pages been mostly lacking replies either recently or in recent years? George Ho (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people instead more actively post on the talk pages of articles within the scope or on their review subpages (e.g. FAC, GAN, PR). You clearly didn't account for this when incorrectly assuming that WikiProject talk pages alone determine activity levels. Adding "semi-active" tags there was hasty at best. I thought it was obvious that ongoing efforts to work on pages within a project's scope count as activity for that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you think WikiProjects are called "moribund" or something like that? (Sure, I was unaware of other factors of activity, but I'm still astonished by the broadening of what exemplifies an "activity", ya know.) George Ho (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They might have gone with the overly narrow criteria that you did or perhaps judged statuses on whether the project members had been around any longer. Nevertheless, there are multiple factors to measure activity instead of just one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note a WikiProject is a group of editors who share a common interest for a particular Wikipedia initiative, such as editing articles related to a certain topic. A WikiProject talk page is a place for these editors to discuss matters of interest to the WikiProject. I agree that a lack of replies to editors starting topics isn't a good sign that the group is active, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no longer a group of active editors interested in the initiative. isaacl (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody,

for around the last year or so I tried to stop one obscure neo-religious organisation from whitewashing their Wikipedia page and the page of their founder, for which they really used every conceivable tool (socks, meatpuppets, AI talkpage discussions, a massive amount of faked or extremely obscure sources, legal threats against another editor, whatever you want). After the ban of their last array of sockpuppets, I noticed that suddenly some central sources used in these articles both in the German and English wiki, which were already only available on archive pages, were deleted even there. This is obviously quite bad for verifiability, and I fear that in a few months/years another sockpuppet will come and delete parts of the articles on the basis that the sources aren't accessible anymore.

See for example:

>Focus article (deleted from the Wayback Machine)

>Tagesschau article (deleted from the Wayback Machine)

While there is some tohuwabohu about some legal proceedings against the Hessischer Rundfunk, I remember that the Focus article in particular only talked in a neutral way about the results of these proceedings, so I don't see how there is a basis to delete this. Both of these are nearly highest-quality sources in the German media landscape. I also couldn't find much information about when or how an URL can be excluded from the Wayback Machine by request of a third party, which does not own the website (which I assume is the case here). Does anybody know more about when/how such a thing can happen or about any similar events? Iluzalsipal (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ali Larijani or Alireza Arafi or somebody else, the sole leader of Iran? Clarification on this matter, would help with related articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MarketFruit:, perhaps all can be settled here. At least, until a new supreme leader is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I mean the issue of Alireza Arafi is already solved, but it's more complicated with Ali Larijani because he is already seen aince the end of December 2025 was de facto leader. MarketFruit (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the answer is to this question (and I certainly don't know) it needs to come with reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources: MarketFruit (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Dec 2025 until his demise, the Supreme Leader wasn't the 'defacto' leader? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After the sources, Khamenei let Larijani handle all things since the protests. MarketFruit (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]