Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

First National Bank of Colorado, Texas

[edit]

I am looking for an Wikipedia article to place this picture. It seems that the First National Bank does exist in the presentday US, but maybe this is an old version (1889). In the old days the banks where organised by state. PS: I live in Europe and I havent been to the US, so I am unfamiliar with the US bank landscape and history. Reading the US bank wikipedia articles I get confused. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably will require access to very localized sources to find out anything about that bank. Banks have failed at often high rates, particularly during financial panics, recessions, and depressions, of which there have been 28 in the US since 1890, per List of recessions in the United States. More recently, there have been many mergers of banks. Over a six year period in the 1980s, I had an account with six different banks without ever closing or opening an account, because of successive mergers. Donald Albury 00:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, about the title "National Bank". Any bank chartered by the US government is a National bank (United States), and has to include "National Bank", "National Association", or "N.A." in its name. There could be more than one "National Bank" in a town or city, and "Second National Bank" or even "Third National Bank" was not unheard of. There is no necessary connection between two banks with "National Bank" in their names. Donald Albury 01:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Smiley.toerist, you might put it into the Colorado, Texas article. Many articles about very small towns have images of cheques, postmarks, etc. associated with those towns. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even banks that stay solvent for a long time change their names, and the cities where they operate change their names, so you have some historical research to do. A quick search found this floorplan for your bank. Good luck finding out more about it. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1001453/
Fights over which institution can call themselves "First National Bank" are surprisingly common. Here is one that is fun to read: https://www.chieftain.com/story/news/2001/05/17/banks-square-off-over-naming/8708389007/ Julian in LA (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question

[edit]

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:

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.

Survey

[edit]
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 then E - The first four options are highly common across other bios on Wikipedia. The fifth option is an acceptable alternative. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'E' option would be better suited in the 'body' of the bio. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 1 February 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]
  • 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]

Discussion

[edit]

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:
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'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 [9][10]. 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[11][12] 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[13][14][15]. 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.[16] 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]
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.[17] 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 [18], 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]
    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]

Request for Advice After LLM Complaint

[edit]

I am asking for advice either for what I should do next or for what two editors should do next about a dispute at Demographics of Singapore and Talk: Demographics of Singapore. One editor made some edits, and the other reverted the edits with a short statement. So far, that was consistent with BRD. The first editor then posted a reply consisting of multiple bullet points, and the other editor collapsed it, saying that it was the output of artificial intelligence. I have not tried to analyze whether it was the output of artificial intelligence. There was then a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have closed the DRN request because DRN should be preceded by discussion, not by a rejection of discussion. Pinging @Aleain and Apa1ni:, What is the proper procedure after discussion has failed because of a claim that a large language model is being used? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically just tell the two editors to move on. If the editors still are bickering it may need some arbitration or admin response. Killertrant (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did try telling the two editors to move on. The question is about admin response. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that a very frequent Wikipedia editor (Aleain, who's far more familiar with the tricks of the trade) has simply accused me of using LLM. This was a false and serious accusation for which Aleain provided zero evidence. Aleain used this accusation to collapse my detailed explanations of my edits and prevent any further discussion.
As you can imagine, I am no longer as keen as before in contributing to Wikipedia. I'm a far less experienced and occasional Wikipedia contributor who simply wishes to make some occasional good-faith contributions. I was astonished that my explanations could simply be shut down through this accuse-others-of-LLM trick (which I'd never seen before anywhere on the internet). And I'm sure many other occasional contributors have been similarly subjected to such abuse either by Aleain or others.
May I suggest that this trick (of accusing others of using LLM with zero evidence and collapsing their comments) be appropriately sanctioned/punished? At the very least, Aleain should be given a severe warning to not do this again. Apa1ni (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most that Aleain can do is publicly apologize, even then you cant force it. Killertrant (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could use the guidelines for WP:ACCUSE not much you can really do though. Killertrant (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my followup questions are whether the allegation, without evidence, of using a large language model to post is a personal attack, and whether the accused party may reasonably report the allegation at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be more experienced. Could you help me make this report? I'm merely an occasional Wikipedia editor and it's just way too complicated to make sure I dot all the i's and t's (I'm sure that if I try making a post there, there'll be all sorts of little details that I missed out on and which will be again held against me). I don't even know what the difference is between all the different pages "WP:ANI", my talk page, the other user's talk page, the article's talk page, "Third Opinion", etc. etc. Apa1ni (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just now, Aleain has again reverted many of my edits to the same Demographics of Singapore page, while ignoring all of the information I've repeatedly given at the article's Talk page, my edit summaries, the Dispute resolution page. For example, Aleain incorrectly reinserted the old false statement that "the remaining 1.8 percent, categorised as Other, are largely Eurasians". I've repeatedly pointed out that this is false and now repeat: "In the 2020 Census, only 18,060 of the 129,669 "Others" (in the Resident population) were 'Eurasian'". Aleain has not taken care to read and consider the facts I've provided. It seems clear that Aleain is deliberately edit warring with me. But I am now highly hesitant to edit this (or any other) page lest I be once again accused of edit warring. Apa1ni (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Apa1ni, thank you for being cautious and avoiding edit warring.
If the problem still exists, then you might try the "baby steps" approach. Look at all the changes that have been reverted. Pick out a very small change that is simple and high-quality. Make just that tiny change, and see whether that gets reverted. For example, I just split one paragraph into two. See if you can make another tiny change that would improve the article, and see what happens if you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that after this experience I won't ever make another edit to a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure why more experienced (and therefore more powerful) users here are allowed to bully less experienced users, revert their edits wholesale, accuse others of using LLM, and collapse their comments as LLM-generated with zero consequence. Meanwhile, I have to take "baby steps" and be incredibly cautious. Apa1ni (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get discouraged too quickly! But note that one of Wikipedia's pillars is to Assume Good Faith. We try not to explain other editors' actions by malicious intent unless the evidence for this is very strong – which does not seem to be the case here. Most likely, the other editor made a honest mistake in interpreting your comment as LLM-generated. As far as I can see, the collapsing of it was the reverted, allowing the discussion to go on. Hence there was no lasting damage and I'd suggest to continue the discussion, trying to resolve the content conflict. Focus on the content, not on any person. Or you might move on to other stuff in Wikipedia you'd like to improve and try whether that works without pushback – if your edits are neutral, grammatically okay and sourced to reliable sources, most of the time it will. Gawaon (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aleain repeatedly and rapidly reverted wholesale all of my edits. Aleain accused me of being "snarky". On my posting of comments at the article's Talk page, within 18 minutes, Aleain had collapsed all of my comments as being LLM-generated and also posted "Nice. An LLM response. This is fruitless." Do these sound like the actions of someone who "Assumes Good Faith" and isn't malicious? Apa1ni (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Aleain has said that they no longer believe that you are using an LLM, so I think we may proceed as if that mistake never happened.
About all your edits being reverted: Yes, that happens sometimes, especially if (as you have said) they are not completely perfect. But if you take a baby step – just one little, carefully checked, less-contentious edit, to add or change just one little thing – you might find that you are able to make progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All Aleain said was "I have largely stopped assuming that they are using a LLM". Note the "largely". And of course, it's probably too much to hope that I'll ever get a sincere apology or hope that Aleain will in any way be punished or that such behavior will not repeat (whether by Aleain or anyone else). // You say, "I think we may proceed as if that mistake never happened." You are free to be magnanimous (about this wrong done to me and not to you) and proceed that way. I will not do so. The "mistake"—or rather, malicious repeated rapid wholesale reverts of my edits, accusations of LLM-generation (including even posting at the ANI), and collapsing of my comments as LLM-generated—all very clearly occurred and I will not pretend (as you seem happy to do) that they never happened. And I will never again edit any articles here. // You also state that "the collapsing of it was the [sic] reverted". But this reversion was probably done by some other editor rather than by Aleain. Apa1ni (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So what? And if you're unwilling to listen to advice, why ask for it in the first place? Also, if you want to reduce your risk of being suspected of using LLMs for your writing, do it like me and manage to introduce lots of typos and small mistakes in most of your edits. Gawaon (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, like too many Wikipedia editors here, you fail to read carefully before posting and pouncing on others for the slightest perceived transgression. It wasn't I who asked for any advice. Scroll up and see who it was that did. Apa1ni (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected! Even so, listening to advice is maybe not the worst idea ever. Just saying. Also, OP did indeed quickly get the advice they had asked for: "just tell the two editors to move on". Those are still words of wisdom, so let's all just move on. Gawaon (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Apa1ni, experienced editors use the "baby steps" approach mainly for two purposes:
  • As a way of figuring out which, of many changes, the other person actually disagrees with. Sometimes reverting editors only disagree with one source or one sentence, but they decide to take a lazy approach and throw the baby out with the bath water. If you present them with one small change, they may accept it. Then you've made progress both in improving the article (your small change was accepted) and in understanding the dispute (the main objection must be to some other part).
  • As a way of differentiating between an ordinary dispute and a reverting editor who has certain kinds of behavioral problems (e.g., violating Wikipedia:Ownership of content). In this sense, you should think of "baby steps" less as you being restricted or cautious, and more like you quietly laying a trap for a misbehaving editor. If all of your changes, no matter how small and unimportant, get reverted by the same person, then it's time to address behavior instead of content.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's concerning here is the lack of response from @Aleain:, either here or on their talk page... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made numerous responses on the now archived ANI threads regarding this unnecessarily prolonged topic. Aleain (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1212#Apa1ni: citing Twitter/X and Wikipedia itself as well as LLM use on talk page in which there is general agreement that the LLM accusation was a mistake, and later Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1212#Demographics of Singapore and LLM allegations in which the OP here asks for more advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, Aleain has repeatedly reverted wholesale most of my changes. (Please see the history page on what exactly happened.) In Aleain's latest reversion, Aleain kept only a few of my updates of figures (e.g. replacing old 2015 or 2020 population figures with new ones). Otherwise, Aleain reverted everything else. For example, Aleain incorrectly reinserted the old false statement that "the remaining 1.8 percent, categorised as Other, are largely Eurasians" (even though I've repeatedly explained why this is false). Aleain also removed the facts I gave on Singapore's rapid population growth (more than doubling in 35 years), dismissing this as "undue commentary". Apa1ni (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aleain also removed the facts I gave on Singapore's rapid population growth (more than doubling in 35 years), dismissing this as "undue commentary". Because it is? Comparing Singapore's demographics and cherry-picking to other countries that are vastly different in size, political climate and history is not productive or relevant. Singapore is a city-state with its own unique demographics trend that cannot be equated to those of much larger nations. Using tweets from Elon Musk and performing your own analysis of World Bank data to support these claims is inappropriate. It suggests your usage of Wikipedia to soapbox personal views on Singapore's population policies rather than engaging in objective and policy-based editing. Aleain (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having a population double in just 35 years is a fairly unusual circumstance. The last time that happened in the US was when the Baby boomers were born. "More than doubling in 35 years" is not comparing against other countries, cherry-picked or otherwise.
I wouldn't cite a tweet, but one of Wikipedia's functions (in practice, not by original design) is to provide correct information to social media users. If the twitterverse (broadly defined) has its facts wrong, then Wikipedia should be a place where interested people can get the facts right. If social media is saying that the population is declining, and the opposite is actually true, then Wikipedia should have the actual, verifiable facts both correct and prominent in the relevant article(s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, OR (per "performing your own analysis of World Bank data") is not allowed, and the whole debate about what to add or modify in the article in question should probably happen on the article talk page, not here? Gawaon (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the first chart in Demographics of Singapore#Population size and growth by residential status, you will see that the population was 3 million in 1990 and 6 million in 2025. I suspect that most editors would agree that "6 is twice 3" and "2025 minus 1990 is 35 years" falls under the WP:CALC exemption from OR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the issue refers to the statement "In the 35 years from 1989 to 2024, Singapore's population increased by 106.0% (more than doubled). In comparison, the same figure was 71.5% for India, 58.6% for Bangladesh, 37.8% for the US, 26.0% for China, 21.3% for the UK, and 0.7% for Japan.", reverted by Aleain, which was sourced to a "SingStat Population Excel file" and some "World Bank Open Data". That is, for sure, somewhat odd, especially the "In comparison" data – retrieving population figures for seven countries from two databases/spreadsheets and than doing one's one calculations for them seems to go beyond simple CALC (without repeating the same OR, other editors cannot check whether the data is as reported and whether the resulting calculations are indeed correct), and moreover, the obvious question here is: What's the point of the comparisons? Gawaon (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want a secondary source for the comparisons, but I don't think that the first sentence violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably it doesn't, but I strongly suspect that the point of contention is indeed the second sentence, not (or much less) the first one. Gawaon (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have deviated from Robert McClenon's initial questions and concerns and are now more focused on content dispute which is better served at the page's talkpage instead of the village pump.
Robert McClenon's current concerns are whether the allegation, without evidence, of using a large language model to post is a personal attack, and whether the accused party may reasonably report the allegation at WP:ANI so to come back to his concerns, do we want to act on Aleain's not assuming good faith and jumping to allegations of using LLM and should Apa1ni made a post on ANI on Aleain's bad faith and allegations.
For content issues, please go to the talkpage and deal with it there. ~ JASWE (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the point about the content discussion better being lead on the article talk page, as I had already said above. As for the other issue, the two ANI threads (linked by WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2026 above) ended with "Dispute resolution is the right approach here. No admin action needed", so I think we can consider that settled. Gawaon (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread is filed by Aleain against Apa1ni and conclusion is that LLM is not used and the content better settled elsewhere (basically consensus on Apa1ni is not using LLM). The ANI thread however does not address Robert McClenon 's followup questionson should we do anything about Aleain.
Robert McClenon is effectively asking should Aleain be WP:BOOMERANG-ed. Bad faith assumption of allegations of LLM usage to pile on content dispute? Should we be jumping to conclusions straight away and file an ANI report straight away? Should such editors be warned etc? This is effectively biting newcomers.
If we treat as a case of WP:BITE, did Aleain Apologize, explaining what motivated you to bite. I see indifference and a lack of response by Aleain. ~ JASWE (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. My followup question wasn't about Aleain and Apa1ni. I was asking a general question. The answer could then be applied to the specific question. One of my concerns is about various ways of yelling in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute is sometimes done, but is known to be a personal attack. I was asking whether yelling Artificial Intelligence without evidence is a personal attack. But this discussion is becoming stale, and I will probably ask the question some other time in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting Robert McClenon's followup questions for clarity and ease, whether the allegation, without evidence, of using a large language model to post is a personal attack, and whether the accused party may reasonably report the allegation at WP:ANI. ~ JASWE (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robert communicates in a very straightforward style. If he meant "Should we BOOMERANG against this editor?" or "Did this editor make a bad-faith assumption?", he would have asked exactly that.
Instead, he has asked a general question: Is this behavior a personal attack? It's safe to assume that he meant the question he asked.
I think the answer to his question is: Maybe sometimes, but not usually. We don't expect people to provide specific evidence of LLM use, but if someone persists in making accusations of LLM use after others disagree, or if they try to discredit someone generally ("If you need an LLM to write in English, you aren't educated enough to know whether this mathematics article contains errors"), then I think it could be considered a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We must be able to point out AI slop / likely LLM-generated comments or we'll risk drowning in it. And there'll hardly ever be definite proof – nobody can know what other editors do on their computers, after all. So such statements, as long as they are made in good faith and not explicitly worded as personal attack, should certainly not be held against the editor who makes them. Gawaon (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should separate "assuming good faith" from "being welcoming". Wikipedia:Assume good faith is about reminding yourself that when someone screwed up, they didn't intend to do any harm to Wikipedia (even though you think they did).
I'm not worried about drowning in LLM-generated comments on the talk page. It's pretty easy to ignore them (maybe not on super high-traffic pages, but on most of them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my reply on Talk:Demographics of Singapore, but just want to rewrite here:

First I understand Apa1ni's concerns, and I might agree Aleain is a bit too harsh here and might be jumping the gun in some accusations (particularly about the alleged use of LLMs in replies). However, also reviewing the edits, there are some valid concerns of WP:SYNTH of primary sources. Yes, we can quote primary sources for basic facts and some inferences based on WP:CALC, but to do any comparison is already a form of synthesis/analysis that would require backing up by secondary sources.

I don't think I can add much, because that page isn't my area of expertise. But I suggest the involved parties here to cool off a bit, and to remember WP:BITE.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

GLAM (cultural heritage) has a link to WP:GLAM (code is [[wikipedia:GLAM|GLAM–Wiki Initiative]]), which feels wrong. The text itself is fine — it refers to the GLAM-Wiki project in a neutral, encyclopedic manner, in line with WP:WAWI — and if we want to link to the project page, of course it's done correctly from a technical perspective. However, the whole idea of linking to a project page seems a bit odd. Aside from disambiguation links (e.g. the hatnote on MOS) and a single link to WP:PP from an article that was already discussing the protection policy (it's been a long time; I don't remember where I found it), I don't remember ever seeing mainspace links to project space. WP:LINK isn't particularly helpful, because its prohibition on non-mainspace links has an exception for project links that pass WP:WAWI.

My question here is the way it's used — if one clicks a link to Wikipedia's protection policy, or the link in For Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, one expects to reach a project page. In this setting, technically, it's not a WP:EGG violation because WP:GLAM does cover the GLAM–Wiki Initiative, but until I clicked it, I anticipated an encyclopedia article about the initiative, not a project page.

Thoughts? I came here rather than the article's talk page because it's little-trafficked; it had just two edits of any significance last year. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Graham87 (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We sometimes put such links in a hatnote ("You may be looking for WP:WHATEVER"), but I don't think they should be in the body of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a project page or the like in the body of an article should be treated as any other external link, and should be formatted that way rather than as internal links (as suggested by WP:WAWI). In the GLAM (cultural heritage) case WP:ELNOBODY would seem to apply, while as a counterpoint our article English Wikipedia has several references (as "primary" sources) as well as a link in the infobox and under English Wikipedia#External links. Anomie⚔ 01:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Annual review of the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines

[edit]

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 9 February 2026. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

21:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I may be overlooking something: I can't find the "review subpages" mentioned in the introductory paragraph of m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2026 (or the corresponding 2025 page, which I browsed to try to see if I was missing something in the document structure). Are there links that I'm missing? isaacl (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closer script

[edit]

A while back I had a userscript that allowed me to close discussions with a button. Does anyone know what it is called? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 02:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser? It no longer works due to a bug, but a fork has been made which should work: User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I got confused with XFDcloser, but I've installed the latter as it seems helpful. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 05:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Find sources in the AI age

[edit]

Help:Find sources is surprisingly useful even for veteran editors (I read it now and I learned some stuff, YMMV). I added a few tips and links there now, but one big gap I am not sure how to handle is the AI research. As most of us know, AI can be used to find sources, with varying results, of course. I don't know if there is a place we discuss this use of AI (arguably, among the least controversial and problematic, assuming, of course, one actually verifies the sources existence and content :P)? And if not, maybe it would be good to brainstorm what folks use, what works, and what we can tentatively recommend on that help page? Personally, I had some luck using ChatGPT deep research, telling it to find sources in languages I don't read (particularly non-latin; and, yes, I did translate and verify content in them myself later). Something like "find sources that would be accepted as reliable by Wikipedia about topic X in languages X, Y and Z" tends to work, but I am sure there is much more than can be done? There are several platforms that claim they can help researchers find sources like https://consensus.app/ but I haven't really done any serious testing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking about. LLMs, while often wrong, can sometimes be useful to find some sources, such as some sources to start with or some additional sources or some sources about things which you couldn't readily find sources the usual way. I'm using DuckDuckGo as a search engine and there I can just switch to ask the AI where I can select the model and I don't trust its answers the slightest so I just go to the links and usually they're about what I was looking for. Some specific chatbots may work better for finding sources but they're probably not free to use and there isn't much to say about other to be very vary of what the LLMs write, to not neglect the normal ways to find sources and to ask for something like "high-quality sources" or "sources as good as scientific reviews" etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Research] Preliminary analysis of AI-assisted translation workflows

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I’m sharing the results of a recent study conducted by the Open Knowledge Association (OKA), supported by Wikimedia CH, on using Large Language Models (LLMs) for article translation. We analyzed 119 articles across 10 language pairs to see how AI output holds up against Mainspace standards.

Selected findings:

  • LLMs were found to be significantly better than traditional tools at retaining Wikicode and templates, simplifying the "wikification" process.
  • 26% of human edits fixed issues already present in the source article (e.g., dead links), showing that the process improves the original content too.
  • Human editors modified about 27% of the AI-generated text to reach publication quality.
  • We found a ~5.6% critical error rate (distortions or omissions). This confirms that "blind" AI publication is not suitable; human oversight is essential.
  • Claude and ChatGPT led in prose quality, while Gemini showed a risk of omitting text. Grok was the most responsive to structural formatting commands.

Acknowleging limitations: We consider these findings a "first look" rather than a definitive conclusion. The study has several limitations, including:

  • Subjectivity: Error categorization is inherently dependent on individual editor judgment.
  • Non-blind testing: Editors knew which models they were using, which likely influenced their prompting strategies.
  • Sample size: While we processed over 400,000 words, the data for specific model comparisons across all 10 language pairs is insufficient.

Our goal is to provide some data for the community as we collectively figure out the best way to handle these tools.

The full report, including the error taxonomy and raw data logs, is available on Meta. 7804j (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to see how the LLMs performed when translating into different languages? I'm guessing LLMs are better at writing English than Polish, just because there is more English content available for them to learn from. It'd be interesting to see how good the prose/accuracy was for each language it translated into. TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have published the raw data in the study itself, so you could have a look at it if interested. However, I wouldn't recommend it because there is a strong editor<>language-pair correlation, which leads to bias. I.e., each editor typically covered only 1-2 language, so when comparing the performance between two languages, it's going to be very hard to remove the noise due to editor's intrinsic differences (e.g., their tendency to overcategorize errors in one bucket) vs effects from the language itself. 7804j (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why the focus is on translating articles from smaller Wikipedias into the largest ones rather than the other way around? Even just one full-time translator on sw.wiki would go a long way Kowal2701 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Kowal2701, the full report doesn't include this info, but the language translation pairs are available in the raw data (see histogram). Most of the 127 translations are from English into another language. EN→PT is by far the most common language pair (59 articles, 46.4%). Others: EN→PL (25 articles, 19.7%), PL→EN (11 articles, 8.7%), EN→ES (10 articles, 7.9%). Only 12% of the article pairs were translating to English. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Those are still fairly big wikis though, I would’ve thought that prioritising languages with high speakers to wiki-size ratios would be most value for money Kowal2701 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In general, OKA prioritizes translations into Wiki languages for which there are many native speakers. So outside of that particular study, we prioritize EN, PT, ES. We also exclude languages that we already know have poor performance in automated translators, due to different character sets and grammar (e.g., Chinese, Arabic, Japanese). We had tested these in the past and saw that it didn't perform well.
For that particular study though, we left it fully up to the editors to pick up articles for any language, in order to move fast but also to have as much diversity as possible (for more generalizable findings). The primary focus was about collecting data about LLMs in general, not necessarily to assess "which language works best" 7804j (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j Thanks for publishing the report and your summary. Others reading this may also want to see the current
administrators' noticeboard discussion about this project. I am going to assume that the timing of this report is coincidental, but it's worth considering the two discussions together. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in my experience, ChatGPT has a 50% or higher chance of omitting text. I use it for translations, but it is LAZY, and very often I have to tell it to complete the task or do it myself. After a kick or two, it will produce a near perfect translation, but at least for me, again, I often have to tell it to finish the job. Maybe it's a prompt issue, shrug. Additionally, it's much better at coding in English than Polish, i.e. it knows English wikicode better than Polish wikicode; it too often tries to "translate" template names etc. from English to Polish, and uses en wiki MoS, not pl wiki. Wonder if the study looked at translations from en, not just to en? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Piotrus, most of the translations were from English to non-English languages (see my comment above, since I was also curious about this). Agree that specific model and process is super important for translations. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0 Any data on which tools are best for translations to and from Chinese and Korean? Most of the students I supervise use these languages, and right now I don't have model/tool specific recommendations for them. I'd love to have some, based on hard data (and, before anyone asks, telling them not to use LLM is pointless - they'll do it anyway, this generation/cohort is already AI-native, and fighting with that is pointless, for better or worse, sigh). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not from this study! I think OKR only focuses on Latin script languages. Suriname0 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus could you cast an eye on Transport in New Caledonia and see if the latter sections being oddly truncated fits this LAZY pattern you’ve seen? CMD (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis It does; however, it is hard to be 100% sure if it is LLM laziness, or the human translator - although from what I see in related discussions, it likely is both (lazy human did not sufficiently check what lazy LLM did). The good news is that based on my experiences, AI tends not to hallucinate with this type of error, it just skips much content. There could, however, be problems with which refs it chooses to keep in such cases. All affected sections need to be redone from scratch. This is not that hard - I've had good results, as I said, just telling AI not to be lazy and redo stuff, although when it come to long articles, this may be challenging (my sample is small and generally consists of reasonably small articles, ones I've written myself, so that makes it extra easy for me to find errors in AI output; and I've noticed AI tends to have issues working with larger blocks of text, which is unfortunate, although I hope this will be fixed in due time, and anyway, these days most articles I write are reasonably short and amenable for AI translation - with a kick or two in the lazy robot's butt). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did find one hallucinated source added to a fully translated section, so your concern about which refs it chooses to keep seems a very possible issue. CMD (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Hope these teething problems will go away soon. I think it's best practice to check the ref count and placement. When I see lazy translation, I don't check for hallucinations, I just tell AI to redo the work. I haven't found hallucinations in correct translations, but yes, I wouldn't be surprised they'd make their way to the lazy iterations. Heck, right now I am using AI to do OCR and create some tables, and every second page it gives me hallucinations, then promises not to, rinse and repeat, sigh. (Still, it's saves me a lot of time, and the end output is good - but if one doesn't double check everything, oh my...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LLMs were found to be significantly better than traditional tools at retaining Wikicode and templates, simplifying the "wikification" process. this is one of the main issues with the current translation system/methods.
I think the conclusion shouldn't be to become more fine with LLM-translations (not that you're suggesting that; you mentioned the ~5.6% critical error rate) but instead to improve the translation system (which of course if one doesn't want to waste huge amounts of time and be limited by one's personal vocabulary & skills, involved machine translation).
This is what m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Better article translation system is about (voting open).
.
There also is an alternative approach mentioned there which would also enable templates to be translated properly etc – however, the normal one-at-a-time translation methodology should imo at least given a proper chance which needs these improvements (especially for non-English Wikipedias where the best & most efficient way to start a new article often is translating from an already existing high-quality article). If it's too long for people to at least glance over it: when I machine translate an article from English WP to another language I speak, I need to spend more exhausting time on fixing all the ref template issues than for actual proofreading and rewording/rewriting. The ContentTranslation tool of course is entirely useless in practice currently.
However, I have to say I have too little experience with and knowledge about the use of LLMs for translation to really say whether things could be improved to a state where using them for translation is a good idea compared to normal machine translation. However, I'm doubtful about it. Thanks for doing this interesting study with useful findings/quantifications. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j, that's fascinating, thanks for sharing the results. Have you tried using LLMs to review translations and flag omissions? Conceptually this task would be similar to the tool I've built which checks whether sources support claims (User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification).
Also, have you tried using open-source LLMs? In my experience their performance is often adequate. Alaexis¿question? 19:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't tried LLMs for reviewing translations, no, though from personal experience they can indeed be quite useful at that (though it leads to editors much more quickly reaching usage limits on free plans, which is why we haven't deployed ot at scale).
We haven't used the open source models because they require some more setup, but given how well DeepSeek performed in this study I also assume they would do fairly well 7804j (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here I've done some benchmarking of LLMs, maybe it would be helpful. Alaexis¿question? 21:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does Special:Random work?

[edit]

I have been trying to access Special:Random without it redirecting, and failing. Whenever I try to add the &redirect=no parameter, it just adds it to a random page instead of showing the Special:Random page. Can someone please tell me how to access the Special:Random page without it redirecting, and/or why the normal parameter to do so doesn't work? (If you think this should have been added in tech, that's for bug reports, and this isn't one.) AndyShow1000000 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "page" at Special:Random. Redirecting is all it does. What would you expect to happen if it didn't redirect?
That being said, if you're really curious, you could do something like open the developer console in Chrome (I'm assuming other browsers support something similar), go to Special:Random and then look in the network tab to see what came back before the redirect happened. If you're into command-line terminals, you could do the same thing with cURL or similar tools. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the how does it work question, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#random. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I asked about this and was directed to the code base where it is implemented. I was favorably impressed, and amused by comments like "Trust me, I'm a mathematician" that appear in the code. Zerotalk 00:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyShow1000000, why do you want to do that? I'm trying to figure out if you want an answer that's appropriate for a curious comp sci student, or if you're trying to do something different, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in the inner workings, you might be interested in a bug I opened years ago: T230700. RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do editors with 50k, 100k get blocked?

[edit]

I have come across many accounts with 50k, 100k, etc., that got blocked for a variety of reasons. Is this rare or more common? How can long time editors get kicked out of wikipedia. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 03:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rare, because not many accounts have that many edits to begin with. Just because you have a lot of edits and are an established editor doesn't make you immune to the rules. I personally feel like such accounts get blocked for sockpuppetry (e.g. they have/had another account where they vandalised; surprisingly more common than you'd think for an established editor), bigotry, like outing themselves as a racist, transphobe, homophobe etc which is not tolerated here, or constant fights and disputes with a lot of editors which take a toll on the community, until enough is enough and they are blocked. Side note, read WP:UNBLOCKABLES; it's a page about how, even though the rules should not differ between an established editor and a new one, oftentimes established editors become "unblockable" by the virtue of being well-known and a constructive editor in some areas, leading to people defending them even if they break rules and their conduct is improper in some aspects. jolielover♥talk 03:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll list out some really interesting blocks I remember, though I'm not sure I should say by name, I personally think it's fine to mention them since this is Wikipedia history and I did find this information from a public page we all can view on WP:Former administrators.
  • An administrator reveals they are ANOTHER administrator who was blocked after paid editing and NPOV violations. After the admin's OG account was blocked, they created a new one where they cultivated an entirely new persona and became a respected member of the community (again). They also alluded to being an indie Spanish musician (who has a page here), when they were in fact not. Many people were confounded because he genuinely built friendships with people as this indie Spanish musician persona, only for it to be fake; blocked for sockpuppetry.
  • I think this may have happened on another project (Commons, maybe?) but on a request for administrator, a trusted user (I think admin) comes out as a transphobe and makes a bitter comment about the requester being a man in woman's clothing. People were also baffled by this since they were a trusted user and thought their account could have been compromised; but they refused to double down and it became clear that they were just transphobic.
  • A former administrator here is noticed to have inappropriate userboxes relating to being a Neo-Confederate. After an ANI discussion they are blocked, though some people objected as they hardly edited anymore and it seemed to be punitive rather than preventive.
These are just some cases I find interesting but you can find more at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause. jolielover♥talk 03:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. is there any cases for arbitrators? 🐈Cinaroot  💬 03:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was the Essjay controversy, where Ryan Jordan (Essjay), an arbitrator and bureaucrat, revealed that he had made up his entire background and that he had falsely claimed to be a professor of religion; he resigned in March 2007. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% - though in CT topics - Fights are unavoidable and probably constant. Its difficult to work in those area's and you need to learn how to be better and keep getting better 🐈Cinaroot  💬 03:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/101399
Many blocked accounts with >= 50k edits are bots. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How can long time editors get kicked out of wikipedia. - Usually because they start thinking their shit no longuer stink and that behavioural standards don't apply to them anymore. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And history tends to support that thinking. About 18 years ago, I put on my "To Do" list that I wanted to suggest WP:CIVIL be demoted to guideline as it's obvious from reading various noticeboards that it isn't going to be enforced as a policy. It was always a pointy thought, but nothing has changed my mind about it. Established users get away with things...until they finally don't. Having 50K+ edits shouldn't make you untouchable. --Onorem (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make you untouchable, but it does factor in determining who is WP:HERE and who is WP:NOTHERE. Kicking out an editor with say 75,000 edits, the majority focused on improving content is not something that should be commonplace, unlike kicking out vandals with 38 edits all spamming "MR JOHNSON THE 3RD GRADE TEACHER AT JOHNSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL IS A POOPYHEAD", which should be done with as little thought as possible. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How much is "start thinking", versus that they always thought it and community norms shifted away from tolerating the bad with the good over time? Or burnout of some sort leading to poor decisions? Or re-judging things from 10 years ago under today's norms? Anomie⚔ 02:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins do try to shield long-term users. I was being harassed WP:HOUND by a long-term editor months ago - the admin (summoned by other editor) tried to diffuse the situation and asked them to back off from me (in a nice way) and told me about the good things about them. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 08:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, at least 5 of the accounts listed in the top 100 in WP:NOE are blocked (though one of those accounts is technically an alt account of a user whose main account is not blocked.) Sugar Tax (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and it seems that in the last few weeks I must have passed 50K edits. I have never been blocked (although I have been told off a few times for using naughty words) largely because I don't have the attitude that my longevity means that I should be held to a different standard than an editor who is just starting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about this a while ago and did some research: enwiki blocks of 100k users RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it also helps to have a WP:DGAF attitude (please, those who don't like the aforementioned naughty words, don't go there). I don't want to be blocked, and wouldn't deliberately do anything to cause it, but if I am then it's not the end of the world, and I would have more time for other things. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent thread about this topic now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 86 § Whale blocks. Graham87 (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding infoboxes over a batch of articles

[edit]

Not sure if this should go here, feel free to move this thread to a more appropriate place:

I recently noticed that a number of articles on ideologies/philosophies/political thoughts/thoughts (e.g. Nasserism, Trumpism, Kirchnerism, Orthodox Peronism) contain {{infobox political party}}. To my knowledge, this template should only be used for political parties, not for ideologies/philosophies/political thoughts/thoughts. I attempted to remove the infobox from one article, but other editors reverted my changes. After some discussion on the talk page, no consensus seems to have been reached, so I thought it might be worthwhile to bring the entire topic here. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 00:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm naïve, but can't we just make {{infobox political ideology}}? Skimming the discussion, that seems to be a viable compromise. I'll whip up a basic draft. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: Of course we can do that, but again I object to using a somewhat unrelated template in an ideology article. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 11:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How is an infobox political ideology template somewhat unrelated? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 12:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: I mean the original {{infobox political party}}. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 14:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fancy, but it's functional. Colours and stuff can be added later.

History
Associated peopleList of theorists
Associated partiesList of liberal parties
Associated literatureTwo Treatises of Government (Hobbes)
Characteristics
Components
Related ideologies

However, aspects of this are redundant to sidebars such as, in this case, {{Liberalism sidebar}}, so editors should be careful in their application. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did I dream this humorous essay?

[edit]

Note that this post does not concern anything which is important.

Some time ago, I could have sworn I had seen this one specific humorous essay. I really wanted to find it again, but no matter how many times I tried to look it up, I couldn't find it at all. That, on top of the fact that the exact details of the essay elude me, I've come to the conclusion that it might literally be an essay I had encountered in a dream, because I can find no evidence that it currently exists, and I'm sure it would not have been deleted.

If there actually is an essay (or something related on Wikipedia) in existence matching this description, though, let me know!

The content of the essay was simply a joyous, whimsical word salad along the lines of "Lalalala lala! Lalala~ Woohoo! Lalalalala! Yippee! Lalala lala lalalala lala yaaay lalala! Lalalala-la-la~!" for several paragraphs. This constituted all of the text, aside from boilerplate template text. There may have been an accompanying image of a painting, depicting a group of folks holding hands in a line prancing across a meadow.

If it exists as I know it, it's the best humorous essay on Wikipedia and I need to find it again. If it doesn't, then I suppose my waking self continues to be thoroughly entertained by the mischief of my dreaming self. I refuse to entertain the notion that it may have existed at one point but got deleted later. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 23:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I saw something like that at RationalWiki (that is, at rationalwiki.org). It was astonishingly good. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's crazy. I've never browsed that site, so I must have either somehow seen a version of it reposted elsewhere or seen a similar version posted here then? Or maybe we're thinking of two different things. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, attempts to look up "lalala" on RationalWiki show mostly people referencing a "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" style fallacy, with no indications of any sort of essay of whimsy and wonder. I'm afraid I believe that is unrelated. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to my comment above: I think I saw it at Uncyclopedia (the website, many years ago). The original was very good but all I can find now is over-cooked tripe. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input at an Template RFC

[edit]

May we PLEASE have more editors' input at this RFC concerning US states that don't have a lieutenant governor? GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

[edit]

Is there any reason we don't have an equivalent of commons:Template:Art Photo? (Or if we do, what is it called?) It's really useful for clarifying a relatively common, but tricky, copyright situation (one copyright for the photo, another for the underlying artwork). It would be very useful for images that we host here that are PD in the U.S. but still copyrighted in their home country, especially because it means that when their copyright in their home country eventually expires, they would port easily to Commons. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 January 20th

[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_20#English_variation_templates

Don't really know where to talk about this, but couldn't this be both an edit notice and a talk page banner? Consensus would be easier to get for that, right? Sorry if I'm wrong. Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 21:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete the talk page banners, so they'll stay. There are no widely used edit notices for that purpose. Gawaon (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok! Nugs | T·C | (they/she) 23:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia biased against the third world and its voices?

[edit]
As amusing as this is, I don't think we need to waste more editor time on this, so I'm WP:BOLDLY closing this now to avoid further pile-on. (capitalist pig closure) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed that Wikipedia is far more likely to say negative things about third-world countries, especially ones the imperialist mainstream media has vilified. I don't see third-world sources like Sputnik and Press TV cited as often as imperialist sources like the BBC and New York Times, even though they are just as (if not more) trustworthy. Wikipedia is also biased against AES (Actually-Existing Socialism). This is evident when comparing its coverage of real ideologies like Marxism-Leninism and Maoism with idealist ideologies like Anarchism, or with vassal states as opposed to independent ones. The language used to describe things in political articles is also highly inaccurate, like describing Euromaidan as an organic "protest" rather than a coup (this happens a lot, actually).

This is, of course, not the fault of any individual editor(s). This is because Wikipedia has limited itself to only spread the narrative put out by western corporate media, in spite of the historical facts and proper dialectical materialist analysis which are readily available to editors, or even just relying on existing sources which are not imperialist or corporate in nature. For example, the BBC is responsible for a large amount of misinformation regarding the 1989 Tian'anmen Square riots which has since been conclusively debunked by more reliable sources. Frankly, I'm infuriated at how so many people have accepted the blatantly false narratives being pushed on us by bourgeois and imperialist media because nobody has bothered to challenge them. It's likely that nobody will listen to me about this. I understand, as a trans woman I am very used to being ignored. However, I am begging for even the simplest explanation of why Wikipedia will not trust perfectly good sources that do not align with the imperialist agenda. I am hoping that this question will at least get somebody to read theory or something. Bunabyte (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see third-world sources like Sputnik and Press TV cited as often as imperialist sources like the BBC and New York Times, even though they are just as (if not more) trustworthy.
lol, lmao even.
However you said "as often" - please let me know any locations you've seen Sputnik and Press TV being used as sources as I'd like to remove them.
and proper dialectical materialist analysis
Oh, I see what's happening. — Czello (music) 07:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care whether a source is from the Global North or the Global South, but whether it's reliable or not. And we don't reach conclusions on this lightly, but after careful debates whenever there's a need for them. You can find the outcome of these discussion documented at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. For example, for several of the sources you mention it says:
  • BBC: "considered generally reliable".
  • Press TV: "In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including Holocaust denial, and a host of other problematic content. "
  • Sputnik (news agency): "There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information ... Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation".
So maybe you should reconsider who's really falling for misinformation and whom you can trust more, whom less. Wikipedia is not perfect, for sure, but I think we're generally doing a fairly good job of getting these things sorted out. Gawaon (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same logic by which people claim that Wikipedia is biased against conservatives because it deprecated Daily Mail, Fox News, and Breitbart (for good reason). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
eh? Russia and Iran are 'third-world' now? What happened? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're back. Did you try investigating this time before presuming you have a right to speak? signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bunabyte: Seriously, I recall Al Jazeera being quite frequently cited. "third-world", I think you need to define this term, because it has too many definitions with each having a different scope of application. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 22:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are mass reverts necessary?

[edit]

The Williams Family

[edit]

I’m looking for the family of Frazer Williams and Fred Williams. My name is George Blakely and (redacted). Georgefrank55 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Georgefrank55 I have redacted your contact information for your protection, it is unwise to post it in this very public place. This page is for discussing various Wikipedia matters, it is not a general help desk for the internet. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Central Banner for Commons:Wiki Loves Punjab 2026

[edit]

A photography contest is going to happen from February 1, 2026 to March 15, 2026 on commons to enrich the content about villages of Punjab and a central notice request has been placed to target English Wikipedia users including non-registered ones from Punjab, Pakistan and Punjab, India. Thanks. -- Kuldeep (Punjabi Wikimedians) (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein

[edit]

According to the latest files released by the DOJ, Jeffrey Epstein apparently tried to have someone "hack" Wikipedia to remove negative stuff about him. Seems like edits were by an IP called 71.165.127.242. Funnily enough, the edits seem to be reverted while the person was writing was writing that email to Epstein. Interesting stuff. The Account 2 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now more conspiracy theories will latch onto the "OMG Wikipedia is EVIL" train without knowing the very basic information that Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit. jolielover♥talk 11:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-01/Disinformation report Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks, I missed that The Account 2 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to "hack" Wikipedia to include true information that is supported by reliable sources, or to exclude false information that is not. You can simply edit it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, they seem to have had a very poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. The Account 2 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP is hard to understand in detail and media is often in a hurry. It is what it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"media" has nothing to do with it, this is Al Seckel's phrasing in his own email Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback

[edit]

More feedback on Talk:Main Page on the topics Confusion of the Yen sign and Wording of ITN item please. Xzkdeng (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar Egyesületek Szövetsége (MESZ) translation

[edit]

It's a Hungarian organization. I've found in multiple wiki article different names/translations, Alliance of Hungarian Associations and Union of Hungarian Organisations - upon crosschecking it turns out both are refering to MESZ. If you go on google translate it spits out Federation of Hungarian Associations. There should be only one name in articles relating to this organization, I don't know which one.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources mentioning this organization favor one name of the organization over all others, then it would be a good idea to stick to it, similar to the WP:COMMONNAME policy for article titles.
If the sources are divided, then it would be a good idea to make sure it is clear in an article that the different translations refer to the same organization. For example, you can add an explanatory footnote to the mention of the organization. Inside the footnote, add regular citations explaining the alternative translations. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1336326662"