Themiscellaneous section of thevillage pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on thepolicy,technical, orproposals sections when appropriate, or at thehelp desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use thereference desk.
Forquestions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post atm:Wikimedia Forum instead.
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
AE Both the Lithuanian SSR and the Soviet Union are defunct, so it makes sense to link to them. I don't think that runs afoul of GEOLINK, which is more focused on extant places. If you didn't know what the Lithuanian SSR was, you would have to copy and paste that into the search because even if you went to Panevėžys, that doesn't have a link to the Lithuaniun SSR or the USSR.CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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]
E perMOS:GEOLINK, which gives very clear guidance toavoid [linking] [consecutive comma-separated sequences of two or more territorial units], and instead suggeststo space the links out when feasible. I see no compelling reason to deviate from the suggestion given atMOS:GEOLINK, which is further supported byMOS:OVERLINK which states thatLinks 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, F or G. All satisfyMOS:GEOLINK by adding a qualifying phrase between extant and non-extant names. "part of" might be seen as less neutral than the other two, butWP: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 orD would be acceptable, but lack the clarity ofE.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 withWP: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.PamD13:59, 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 linkLithuanian SSR (or its equivalents) are preferable to those that do not. I'm willing to bend the guidance atMOS: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 thede facto country rather than thede 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]
A, B, C, D thenE - 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]
E seems like a good compromise, I'd preferA but can see that will conflict with MOS. I'm less a fan ofF andG, rather keep it simple and explain in the related articles. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆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 ismilitary occupation, in this case theoccupation 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 asState 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 fromWP: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 asstating 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 factoLithuanian SSR, Soviet Union, de iureLithuania orPanevėžys,Sovietoccupied 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]
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]
Be sure to read the last part ofMOS: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 ofAustria-Hungary ([[Kumrovec]], then part of[[Austria-Hungary]]).
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 theIslamic 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]
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]
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 articleState 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]
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]
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 underlyingWP: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 theWelles 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 atState 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]
A orC orE. Lithuanian SSR should be linked; if that is linked, I don't think linking Soviet Union hurts or helps much. And if we are going to separate the blue links, it should be as short as possible.LordCollaboration (talk)20:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
B:
1: PerWP:GEOLINK, the examples show only thefirst item of each list being linked. I propose the same be done here.
2: Also, we want to avoidMOS:OVERLINK. The more words are linked, the less likely each linked item is to be viewed. As such, links should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. I believe that only linking the first item here would be the best.
3:WP:INFOBOX statesThe purpose of an infobox isto summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. I believe this is farther evidence that links should be used sparingly in the infobox, especially when it comes to location lists.
4: We should avoid unnecessary controversy when possible, and just listing the location avoids extra debates over phrases such as "then part", which are included in some of the other options.
BecauseB only links the first item here, I think we should apply this one.
My question at MOS:GEOLINK, was about what to link or not link. My questoin wasnot about altering the 2025 RFC decision or amending MOS:GEOLINK.GoodDay (talk)19:18, 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 ofVilnius, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic should be changed toVilnius, Lithuania (de jure)/Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Soviet Union (de facto), along with an explanatory note thatLithuania regained its de facto independence in 1990. TheAct of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania restored state continuity throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Soviet occupation.
Proposed explanatory notes for use:
Estonia:Estonia regained itsde facto independence in 1991. Throughout the 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 Sovietoccupation, Estonia's de jure state continuity was preserved by diplomatic representatives and the government-in-exile.
Hello everyone! I will be monitoring this discussion as an uninvolved administrator, followingGoodDay's request atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. GoodDay, I invite you to briefly readour 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.ChaoticEnby (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.CaptainEekEdits 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.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)21:05, 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]
The option you wanted included, was excluded because it wentbeyond 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 atWikipedia 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?ChaoticEnby (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 whetherCity, SSR, Soviet Union (with the preferred linking) orCity, then part of SSR, Soviet Union (or some other variant) should be used. I am not aware of a prior discussion.Jähmefyysikko (talk)21:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add this following information for consideration.[9]
That shows how many times Estonia, Estonia SSR and Solviet Estonia are used in literature and period publications, by years.
I believe that it shows clear data, how in this example Estonia was used a lot lot more often than Estonia SSR and Solviet Estonia combined.
There have been many arguments about using period correct names, then this data should be one of main criteria choosing period correct name. Just because Estonia SSR was on map, does not mean it as a name was commonly used, as per linked data. Also judjing by period ussage using only Estonia SSR does does violateWikipedia:NPOV andWikipedia:UNDUE
There are new options in this RFC, so I assume, its only fair to add new data into considerations, especially since there were many arguments about common names in period. It just shows how poorly executed was last RFC. I will respect this RFC decision, but it doesn't mean, that this topic has consensusWikipedia:NOCONSENSUS andWikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGEBerzinsJanis (talk)07:18, 11 February 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.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)22:02, 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?
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 torespectfully 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]
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 inWP:RFCEND.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:24, 30 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 atTalk: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 aboutCrimea 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 (seeState 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 violatesWP:CANVASSING policies and is something that the closer of an RfC needs to be aware of (which you probably already know given your familiarity with wiki processes). You are also not the only new account in this RfC who doesn't have any contributions anywhere on Wikipedia outside the Baltic birth place question.Nakonana (talk)17:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic birthplace is sensitive topic in Baltics, its a bit foolish to expect that there wont be any new editors, or reapearing ones when it has gained mainstream media attention in all 3 Baltic states. Like it or not, it will generate new editors, who will want to join topic and there is no way to figure out if they are here on there own wish, or someone asked them.BerzinsJanis (talk)17:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot with this behavior. The more you push, the harder the pushback. This kind of behavior has even the potential to alienate people who'd usually be sympathetic towards you and your cause under different circumstances[10][11].Nakonana (talk)18:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And would your opinion would be in this matter? Please provide neutral opinion on this matter. One that could be acceptable for most.
Please provide neutral opinion on this matter. One that could be acceptable for most. Then are you actually asking formy 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, seeState 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 againstCrimea 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]
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.
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.
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 doingis an appropriate way to address canvassing issues perWP: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 Russianfreedom 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 atCrimea 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]
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]
Thanks a lot. Noting that this is a follow-up tothe 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.ChaoticEnby (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 all15 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]
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]
From offered variants I sayF is the best thenE. 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]
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]
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 articleState 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]
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]
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]
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]
Again, its is not my opinion, but internationaly recognised fact that have its own wikipedia articleState 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]
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]
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.
Assuming you raised these biographies in good faith, I would expect Wikipedia to treat people born in an occupied territory during a hot war quite differently to people who were born in an occupied state during a far more protracted cold war. But I would also expect those biographies to mention something in the body text along the lines of“Early life: X was born in Y Oblast in 1942, while the territory was under Nazi occupation.”— HTGS (talk)23:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that births and deaths during the first Soviet occupation (1940-1941), or during the second Soviet occupation but before the end of the war (1944-1945), should be treated differently from those after the war, between 1945 and 1990/1991?Indrek (talk)06:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving a rationale for why Nazi occupation might be sensibly treated differently to an enduring Soviet occupation. As for the initial Soviet occupation, I don’t have a good answer to that, and I could see good reasons to go both ways. And I am very much not an expert, so it’s probably best that I don’t take too strong a stance on the specific.— HTGS (talk)09:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I raised them to show that there is currently no consistently applied style, for exampleTatyana Adamovich doesnt even mention Solviet union, just Russia. WhileAnatoly Glushenkov mentions birth place as both Russia and Solviet union.
This sugest there is no single practice across bibliograpfies. Before imposing a single style to Baltic states it would be helpfull to clarify what are principles to for such cases.
Those articles are incomplete and imperfect. Is a consistently applied style not what we are working towards here? That is why I suggested the differentiation between temporary and extended occupations.
I brought up the Ngram data for the same reason I raised the other examples, to show that there is no same applied style, and that actual language usage differs.
Ngram is relevant underWP:COMMONNAME because it reflects how terms are used in english sources over time. If the data shows that Estonia is used far more frequently than Soviet Estonia or Estonian SSR (and Latvia and Lithuania show the same pattern), this suggests that usage of these countries are generally used by their state name rather than by the Soviet name.
That seems relevant when we are discussing how to describe birth places or political entities in biographies. If the wast majority of English language sources use one form, that should at least be considered before imposing a single uniform style that forces to use only Soviet qualifiers while at the same time removing any other names.
Ngram is not proof on its own, but it does provide evidence of usage. If we are aiming for consistency, it would be helpfull to first clarify what principles/rulles we are applying COMMONNAME, usage in reliable sources orand tother info, rather than standardising one formula only for selected cases.
And honestly I do not understand this reasoning behind wish to keep only solviet names while excluding modern names. It seems like a really narrow application of policies. There are many examples on wikipedia where naming follows common usage rather than strict historical odities, so it is unclear why in this case policies are interpreted so narrowly.BerzinsJanis (talk)10:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That we use "Estonian SSR" etc. in infoboxes in these cases has already been decided in an earlier RfC. You continually act as if you don't know that, but of course you do.Gawaon (talk)11:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know there was previous RFC about this and that it supported using Estonian SSR in infoboxes. I am not saying it did not happen. But that RFC had a lot of problems, and I think policy was applied in too narrow way there.
My point is not to ignore the result, but to question if it really followsWP:COMMONNAME and how english sources write. If most sources simply use Estonia much more often than Estonian SSR, then that should at least be looked at, at some point.
Consensus is not something fixed. It can change. Im saying that maybe the policies were read too strictly in that discussion, and that in many other cases on Wikipedia naming follows common usage, not only strict historical wording.
This can be discussed again in future. Right now I am just pointing out problems with it and asking what rules we are really following here COMMONNAME, usage in sources, or just keeping old decision no matter what.
There were at least 3 attempts to overturn that RfC, all failed. "Consensus can change" is not a defence for refusing to accept the consensus that has been found. Maybe after a few years have passed and if new information has been provided (unlikely since the issue was thoroughly discussed before, but who knows), the RfC decision will be revisited and possibly revised, but for now you would show more respect for your fellow-editors and their precious time by accepting the consensus as it stands andnot venturing off-topic into already settled questions all the time.Gawaon (talk)15:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the challenges were mine from earlier when I did not know any better, so those can be set aside. That leaves one chalange.
My point is: how exactly wereWP:COMMONNAME and actual English language usage weighed in that decision? What policies were folowed here.
Im not ignoring RFC, im asking for policy based explenation why ngram data is not applicalbe and policy based ansver why such narrow rules (use only x SSR, Solviet union), for infobox are imposed. If the matter is considdered fully settled, then it would not be difficult for you to not mind give brief policy based explenation, how(ngram) data shows that, for exmaple, Estonia is used far more frequently in English language sources than Estonian SSR or Soviet Estonia — was evaluated and why that evidence was considered insufficient underWP:COMMONNAME and why its forbidden to use both modern and old names, when thats done in wast majority of rest of eroupes infoboxes.BerzinsJanis (talk)16:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While it is problematic, many of said problems should not reflect on 1939 to 1991 period. No new self published books can be added to it, and most UN protocols will use solviet name schema. It however does show, even with its all problems, that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were common names, even if say only half of data is accurate, they still are in common usage and should not be ignored.BerzinsJanis (talk)17:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are still doing it. If you want to try overturn that settled RfC, you may take it to the admins, but this isnot the place to have that discussion.Gawaon (talk)18:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! To clarify, admins do not have additional power around starting or overturning RfCs. However, such a discussion is still off-topic here, and should be held in a separate thread, if at all.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)10:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to the Manual of Style. As I understand it, MOS:Biography "Birth date and place" section does NOT specifically address what to do when a birth country was under illegal occupation that was never recognized de jure by most Western nations. In the absence of specific guidance, WP:NPOV should take precedence.Seungsahn (talk)18:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 articleState 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]
The argument about state continuity in the Baltics was in fact made inWikipedia 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 have collapsed the "vote" above bySeungsahn. 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]
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 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]
@Gotitbro: I wrote the comments myself. Accusing other editors of using AI without evidence is not constructive and borders on a personal attack perWP:AGF andWP: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.
I would obviously waste no time in engaging with chatbot responses. Do non-native speakers also generate bulleted, essay, flowy responses exactly like ChatGPT[19], do non-native speakers also make unabated use of em dashes exactly like LLMs, do non-native speakers also show very proficient familiarity with enwiki policies (though of course without knowing how they actually apply as LLMs do not know one thing from the next) despite barely beginning to edit. If the answer to all of that is no, which it is, youshould know that absolutely no one is buying the MANDY here.Gotitbro (talk)10:08, 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 someoneis 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]
Seungsahn should also be reminded that Wikipedia does "de facto", not "de jure". The problem withde jure is that it's inherently notWP:NPOV: it depends whosejus 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 boxCrimea, 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 termslink 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]
There are a million mainstream viewpoints behind every link on this article. If the viewpoint of the footnote is so extraordinarily mainstream that the way the link itself is written is misrepresentative, then we should reinvestigate whether we should rewrite it.— HTGS (talk)00:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any policy that favorsde facto overde 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 likeWP: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 onFree trade area andList of countries by tariff rate we don't mention smuggling, even though it's a way ofde facto bypassing tariffs. --Beland (talk)21:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set end to RFCs. They end when editors have stopped discussing and !voting. You can stop the bot from removing the rfc tag.WP:RFCEND:To extend a current RfC for another 30 days, and to prevent Legobot from automatically ending the RfC during the next month, insert a current timestamp immediately before the original timestamp of the opening statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date).TurboSuperA+[talk]16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would really advise against extending this RFC. Participants are just repeating arguments that have already been made, and the usual 30 days have been long enough to get a good sampling of opinion. We need to come to resolution on this so we can free volunteer time for other article improvements. --Beland (talk)18:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let a fearless closer have fun with this one once the template is expired. I deeply admire the brave people who dare to close such tricky issues.Gawaon (talk)18:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've been meaning to open a thread on this also, just didn't know where. It looks to be some sort of school assignment where every student gets an account and then in a small group, picks a sandbox of one of their classmates to edit it. I'm blanking on if I watchlisted any of the pages but i think I saw one that was signed at the end with 4-5 student's names and a teacher's name.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)05:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lingua Libre is a WMF/WMFR tool to record the diversity of human languages, regional and personal variations. Records of words or expressions are mostly used within Wiktionaries, Wikipedias, and Wikidata. Our contributors provided1.5 millions files to Wikimedia Commons, or about 1% of its total.
May I ask for your help toexpand languages support on Lingua Libre next release ? We currently have full support for ~12 major languages, but we would like to serve smaller languages and cultures as well. Most wanted are:
There's some symbolism here for Wikipedia country articles. Many were originally heavily based on the World Factbook, which was convenient and accessible. Even today with a much more developed and diverse sourcing pool, it can remain the most-cited source on a page.CMD (talk)04:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Massgrave seems to be a way of running Microsoft software without paying for it. I don't think asking the maintainer(s) nicely will achieve anything, but it looks from your links as if the admins at ruwiki have taken the correct approach - salting the titles "Massgrave", "Википедия:Massgrave" and "Массгрейв", and they will need to do more of the same if the spammer tries different titles.Phil Bridger (talk)22:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction, it reads "major scandal with significant ramifications". That’s a blatant lie! She has, so far, been stripped ofone patronage. That’s it! That’s not "significant ramification". The statement also lacks any citation on this allegedly "significant ramification".
The whole article is heavily biased in how this is described. Today, one of Norwegian’s largest and most important news papers (Aftenposten) uses this Wikipedia article as one of the arguments on how big of a scandal this is.[20] Wikipedia isn’t supposed to influence the public opinion, Wikipedia should write in a neutral, balanced and encyclopedic manner, we shouldn’t influence or try to influence the opinion.
I can add that the article creator and main contributor tried to edit the no-Wiki article on Mette-Marit, and got furious when the content was removed. A short description was later added. The user accused the no-Wiki community of treating the article as if it was the Norwegian royal family’s web page, that the community protects her, that it’s censorship, and even compared Mette-Marit to former prince Andrew. Totally out of proportions (my personal opinion).
Today, the user once again on the no-Wiki article talk page vented frustration on the small amount of text. Over at no-Wiki, we have deliberately chosen to write just a little about the Epstein files (also in the articles of Thorbjørn Jagland, Terje Rød-Larsen, Mona Juul and Børge Brende – where it IS mentioned, but doesn’t fill over a quarter of the biography, like the user tried to do in the case of the Mette-Marit article), because Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS). What’s in the news today is difficult to put into a historic context. Many editors have expressed that without any statements and explanations from the involved parties, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to keep a well balanced article if no-Wiki writes too much about it.
I can add that this isn’t the first time the same user have edited or discussed biased when it comes to the royal family. As one sysop expressed it, the user seems to have an agenda. Because the user last weekend (same day as this new info was published in media) put back text that was removed, and the previous POV, autopatrol status was revoked (possibly temporarily). Patrollers need to monitor edits, at least for know.
When I’m editing on Wikipedia (and sysop-ing @ no-Wiki) my concerns isn’t about the reputation of the crown princess, the royal family, former politicians, my own country or anything else. Then and there it’s Wikipedia’s reputation that matters, period. To me the said article here at en-Wiki is damaging for that reputation, when a newspaper take the existence of a Wikipedia article to cite support for their editorial work! Others (both sysops and regular editors) have expressed similar concerns in the debate today, even if this article isn’t on "our own" language version.1000mm (talk)23:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The header is "problematic/biased article" and most of your post is about the content of a particular article(though some is about its Norwegian version, which we have no power over) I'm not sure what it is that you are seeking if it is something other than changes to that article.331dot (talk)23:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could have chosen a better header, yes. The concern is that the existence of this article has become an argument and part of influencing the opinion in media. That’s not what Wikipedia is or should be.1000mm (talk)23:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know only a few Norwegian. When I read texts in this language , I understand maybe 5-10% of a text because of a lack of knowledge about the vocabulary.
I wasn’t aware of that section of the talk page. The same concerns as I have raised, so this post is redundant. I apologize for that. @331dot, as you’re an admin, feel free to close, archive or even delete this post. Again, I apologize.1000mm (talk)23:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The place to get attention isWP:BLPN (and the issue is briefly mentioned there). However, while I haven't looked at the article in question, I have noticed a bunch ofSPAs pasting every bit of Epstein muck they can find into articles. Some subjects deserve at least ridicule due to their Epstein connections, but it would appear that others were simply bystanders who exchanged innocuous emails with a well-connected rich guy. Some central discussion might be needed eventually.Johnuniq (talk)23:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what we did at no-Wiki last weekend, where we agreed that the whole shebang should and must be mentioned in different biographies, but to a limited extent, at least for now. For instance, Thorbjørn Jagland has during the last week become under investigation from the police (specifically National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime in Norway), and naturally there’s written more in the article about him than in some other articles.
Other former politicians may have done illegal things to, or at least been a part of unethical actions.
There’s no information so far that Mette-Marit have done any such things. Improper contact, yes! Spectacularly bad judgement, also a huge yes! Does that justify a stand alone article that’s almost of the same size in bytes as her biography?
But my main concern isn’t the article itself, but the fact that this article is published on en-Wiki has been used as arguments by Norwegian media to show the scale of this scandal. Wikipedia content shouldn’t be a part of the public debate, or used to influence the opinion, but that’s the case here. And frankly, I find it damaging towards the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. A long paragraph inside a biography is far less problematic in the same manner.1000mm (talk)00:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we avoid media to use Wikipedia ? The answer is : We cannot.
Wikipedia is public. De facto , Wikipedia content can be a part of the public debate or used to influence the opinion.
Even if it can't be pleasuring for many of us. It is like many problems concerning Wikipedia.
1.We can't destroy "vandalism" with a rate of 100%.
2."Sockpuppetry" will exist on Wikipedia until the end of the projet.
3."Edit warring" will be a problem until the end of the project.
But we can avoid that Wikipedia sets the agenda and defines incidents. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to define anything, Wikipedia reflects on what’s already defined.1000mm (talk)08:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that's what's happening here. If nobody was covering this relationship nobody would have found that article either. That there were already more than 200,000 page views within a week and that similar articles already exist in five other Wikipedias indicates a considerable interest in the issue regardless of the contents of the article itself. You can of course propose the article for deletion, but I strongly suspect that that proposal would fail due to the evident notability of the topic.Gawaon (talk)08:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not the case here. The said article is in no way proportional in terms of the severity.
The point is that of the five high profiled Norwegians from the latest files, only one have a stand alone article about the connection with Epstein. For the other four, it’s a small part of their biography. The ironic part is that those four are the ones who have done something that could be punishable by law (mainly corruption, but possibly other things as well due to their networking with Epstein). Not like the naive crown princess who (shocking late, I might add, in addtion to what I already wrote as a reply to Johnuniq) realized that Epstein was trying to use/exploit her as a prominent person.
Well, like GoodDay and myself already said, you can always propose the article for deletion if you think it should not exist. en-wiki is self-governed, so that's the way to do it.Gawaon (talk)09:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the articledoes have clearPOV andTONE issues, but those are to be addressed by improving the article (and discussing changes on the talk page if they are reverted or otherwise contested) rather than by discussing here.Gawaon (talk)08:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You said"But we can avoid that Wikipedia sets the agenda and defines incidents." Wikipedia is a collective.
If you consider that Wikipedia sets the agenda and defines incidents. I answer that I think that we have to make a distinction between the collective and users as individuals.
Are these users responsible of what media say about Wikipedia ? We don't control media. We can do anything , we still be criticised positively or negatively by media.
"Wikipedia isn’t supposed to define anything, Wikipedia reflects on what’s already defined."
This will be easier to fix in a week or two when all the world's media have moved on from Epstein, having solved the problems of misogyny and pedophilia.Phil Bridger (talk)14:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia approaches its 25th anniversary in 2026, its open editing model faces a growing challenge: coordinated edit wars. In these campaigns, Kremlin-aligned actors try to rewrite history, launder disinformation, and lock distorted narratives into one of the world’s most trusted reference platforms.
This piece is centrally based about a false narrative that the RfC decision to include the Soviet Union in the birthplaces of biographies of Baltic citizens was as a result of "Kremlin aligned actors". What actually happened, is that ordinary Wikipedia contributors voted in a RfC for this to truthfully represent whatde facto actually occurred. Ironically, it is EUvsDisinfo that is laundering "disinformation" and "distorted narratives" here, not Wikipedia.Hemiauchenia (talk)13:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they seem to have limited understanding of how Wikipedia works. But anyway, their conclusion that "sites like Wikipedia will remain contested ground" is correct enough.Gawaon (talk)14:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies. EUvsDisinfo is part of the EU's diplomatic service. I have sent them an enquiry asking if they care to respond here or onJimbo Wales' talk page, where I have also posted this. EUvsDisinfo publishesguest content, if someone more knowledgeable than I am about the subject would like to respond to their article there.Carlstak (talk)16:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What gets my goat is that some people claim that Estonia and the other Baltic states should somehow be treated differently from the rest of the Soviet Union. The average Estonian counted for the same in the government's eyes as the average Georgian or Uzbek or Russian (i.e. zero).Phil Bridger (talk)18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC) P.S. And saying this does not make me a "Kremlin-aligned actor".[reply]
Thanks. Apparently they read these comments and actually did something. I would have thought they would respect journalistic standards and have posted a correction.Carlstak (talk)23:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are many pages for Olympic athletes that do not provide a pronunciation for their names. I noticed today that olympics.com provides recordings of the athletes' names in their own voices, which even if we can't use those recordings directly should be aWP:RS for editors to make a proper phonetic transcription. I don't know when this practice started, so it may not be helpful for athletes at prior Olympic games but it would be useful for the current event at least.~2026-87558-8 (talk)19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a request to verify that the editors atMiscellany for Deletion are right in the consensus that any sort of alternate history, including in user sandboxen (sometimes the plural of 'box' is 'boxen'), is non-encyclopedic, and should be deleted. We (the editors at MFD) sometimes see nominations of contrary-to-fact uses of election infoboxes, and we agree that these contrary-to-fact election infoboxes should be deleted. If they are in the past, they have ahoax-like quality. If they are in the future, they arecrystal balling. They sometimes use either the names or the images ofliving persons, and if those names or images are used non-factually, we note that as an additional reason to delete.
There are three of these that were nominated on 7 February 2026, which is more than we usually see, and this may be a game that is being coordinated off-wiki and is using Wikipedia as aweb host for non-encyclopedic purposes. Yesterday and today, two of the three originators are complaining that we are infringing their use of their personal sandboxen, and that they are not presenting the material in the infoboxes as factual because there is no explanatory text. I think that these arguments arewikilawyering. There arefreedom of the press arguments, butfreedom of the press applies to those who own a press, and the WMF owns the servers, and has delegated control of the servers to the encyclopedic communities.
So my first question is whether the community at MFD is correct that this alternate history is non-encyclopedic and a misuse of the servers. My second question is whether anyone knows anything about off-wiki coordination to play these games on the WMF's servers. My third question is whether anything should be done beyond continuing to delete these silly pages.Robert McClenon (talk)19:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although they were nominated at the same time (byUser:Bait30), they weren't created at the same time and they don't seem to be connected content-wise. Wikipedia-style content is quite popular among the alternate history community, so if I had to guess this is just a symptom of that as opposed to some coordinated thing. novovtalkedits03:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. People like making alt history stuff, and doing it through Wikipedia makes it look "official". Still, I personally am not a fan of the hoax argument because in my view, hoaxes are deliberate attempts to misinform, whereas these seem to be more just people having fun or being imaginitive. But these alt history sandboxes still should be deleted perWP:UPNOT. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?03:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has to be any sort of coordination. There are many communities liker/ImaginaryElections where people create alternate history content, very often through fictional Wikipedia infoboxes and articles. And creating them in one's sandbox is the easiest way of doing that.Helpful Cat {talk}03:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think some leeway should be given for legitimate sandbox usage. Unfactual infoboxen in sandboxen aren't necessarily hoaxen. If you're trying to learn how the formatting works, a sandbox is the best place to try things out and the content isn't important. It's probably even preferable for non-BLP content to be obviously fictitious, so people don't see it as misinformation or similar. If you keep the completed infobox in your sandbox as a reminder of how it should work, or how you want it laid out, that seems like a legitimate Wikipedia-oriented use to me.~2026-87829-3 (talk)10:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't ahoax if it isn't actually intended to represent fiction as fact. Some alternate history posters have created pages about countries in which they have said "X is a fictional country" to clarify that it was not a hoax, and we deleted the sandboxen anyway. Alternate history that has dates in the past is stillweb hosting for a non-encyclopedic purpose, and that is an adequate reason to delete. Many but not all of the alternate history pages also use the names and/or images of living persons in a manner contrary to fact. The amount of misinformation in the sandboxen is usually greater than the author needed to learn how the formatting works.Robert McClenon (talk)18:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your second inquiry in your OP for this thread, there was in fact an ANI thread a couple of weeks back where someone was talking about a particular site (or was it a reddit group? I can't recall) which organizes the alternative history fan community and may be responsible for the majority of users who end up here using their sandboxes for this purpose. I'll try to find it and link it here later. However, not to be duplicative of the previous discussion, but I agree that all or nearly all of these users seem to be unaware of how their activities fall afoul of our rules and have not reasoned out for themselves why the resulting content is problematic for this project.SnowRise let's rap21:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember that thread. I think the user was called Shane but their userid was much longer than that. I wish I was still young and had a better memory.Phil Bridger (talk)21:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that you are thinking about the r/AlternateHistory subreddit, I posted a link below to their sticky thread telling users how to create alternative history pages in their sandboxen.--Gurkubondinn (talk)22:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion at this point is that the alternate history pages should continue to be taken to MFD. They are not sufficiently common that we need G16; we can handle them through deletion discussions.Robert McClenon (talk)18:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's just tricky because I could probably flood MfD with these and it would honestly start getting tedious. At the same time, db-hoax is too bite-y in my opinion. Like I said before, these sandboxes are usually made just to have fun, not to deliberately vandalize or harm the project. There should really be a new CSD rule for alt hist cruft. There are so many of these pages that do not fit U6 or U7 because the users have made some constructive edits in the past or the sandboxes were created less than 6 months ago. So despite these pages clearly not being made for encyclopedic purposes, they're made difficult to delete due to bureaucracy. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really remedy the NOTWEBHOST aspect of it though. That just tells people that they can make their fun alt history stuff on Wikipedia, and as long as they blank it, they can still find their stuff in the diffs. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?16:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And if we ever have evidence that people are doing that, then maybe we would decide to take a more significant action at that time.
Thank you,User:Bait30 - How many of these alternate history pages do you know of? Thespeedy deletion talk page says that new speedy deletion criteria should be Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, and Non-Redundant. What I have seen is not frequent enough to require G16. Are there more of these than we see at MFD?Robert McClenon (talk)22:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't have a script or anything to do this.User:Liz asked me about this a long time agoso here is my explanation on how I do it. So just doing that, there are 383 hits for "270 electoral votes needed to win". In my experience, a vast majority of them are some sort of alt history cruft. But there are many that I just don't do anything about because I don't have the bandwidth or executive functioning to figure out which policies and guidelines apply even though I know in my gut that they should be deleted. And then there are some users that have like 10+ alt history sandboxes. I did a bundled MfD nomination of 5 sandboxeshere and it was so damn confusing that I will simply not go through that again. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?00:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these will meetU6 orU7, FWIW. Note that, while U6 taggings aremostly automated, you're still allowed to place a tag manually if you see good reason to delete a user subpage sooner rather than later (as it may take years for the bot to get to a given page; see alsoWP:U5FAQ). I also maintain that G3 applies in any case where the page doesn't indicate that it's a work of fiction; if something presents falsehoods as facts, we can treat that as a hoax. So really all that's left that needs to go to MfD are pages that are U6/7-ineligibleand clearly state that they're works of fiction. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
chronic redditor and wikipediholic here, IMO I think the alt history sandbox things are good, with a proposed term:
After the screenshot has been taken, The user needs to immediately remove the alt history scenario from the sandbox.
What?? Any editor who abuses Wikipedia to make vanity screenshots for their favourite alt-history scenario should be banned on sight, in my humble opinion.Gawaon (talk)15:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How in the absolute (mind my french) frick do you think people could make a wikipedia style alt history scenariowithout screenshotting??
What gave you the impression that people should try to make a Wikipedia-style alt history scenarioon Wikipedia?? Wherever that impression that came from, it's deeply wrong. Anyone can install a MediaWiki. If they want an alt-history wiki, that's the way to do it. But Wikipedia isnot.Gawaon (talk)18:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've gotten the main guide on this to emphasize only previewing things, but lots of people will miss that or won't have read that guide; we can have pages here telling people how to use dev tools or otherwise spoof edits, but almost no one will follow those instructions. The best way to reduce the rate of this is to create a newpath of least resistance.
If someone made a website that previews wikitext using the exact same templates and styles that enwiki does, where you don't need to create an account or anything, and where everything's just previewed in your browser rather than saved to the cloud at all, this would be a simpler path to creating faux Wikipedia articles than the current preferred approach of sandbox editing. My guess is we could even get some people in the alt-history space to promote such a site. Given that this would reduce vandalism and have other useful applications for quick previewing, I think this would bein-scope for Toolforge. We could call it something like wikipreview.toolforge.org.
Under the hood, all this would need to be is a back-end that takes wikitext, runs it through the enwiki API'sparse action, and then renders that using the same stylesheets we use. For bonus points, add a dropdown to pick a specific skin. No save button, no share button, nothing fancy, just a preview that people can screenshot if they want. Oh, and this way we can keep the Wikipedia logo out of things, maybe do the slightest bit of brand protection. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are there features being used by the Wikipedia Discord channel that will require age verification? My very quick search didn't turn up any indication that all channels will become age-restricted.isaacl (talk)08:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of time until Discord starts to require ID scan/photo of your face just for using their service/registering. After all, Discord is a commercial company, so if they don't run ads or you don't pay for their service, then they sell your data, and you're the product.sapphaline (talk)08:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No,WP:DISCORD is not an age-gated server and does not have any 18+ channels. Forcing message requests back on will be somewhat annoying, and the friend restrictions may or may not apply to how we do ban appeals, we'll have to wait and see. I'm under no illusions that Discord won't continue getting worse as they go forward with their IPO though. We have been discussing alternate chat systems, but unfortunately we're kinda in an "everything sucks" situation at the moment. A bridge to Matrix seems the most likely path forward at this point, but there are some moderation concerns that we haven't decided to accept yet.AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk)15:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just noting for pedantry's sake that there are multiple Discord instances, even if we're just talking about the English-language projects. WhileWP:DISCORD mostly concerns the main English-language Wikimedia community instance, it lists other instances used by English Wikimedia/Wikipedia editors at§ Other servers. Some of these are more vulnerable than others to eventually becoming age-gated.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)10:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Discord's decision to require age verification will affectall servers and editors in some ways. There is no opt out and no escaping (other than moving away from Discord).Gawaon (talk)11:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it only affects servers/channels marked as having adult content, as well as adding some automatic filters for direct messages. Are there changes more sweeping than that?~2026-96687-3 (talk)12:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for example, suspected teens (= all not age-verified users) will not to able to see images and other media files that Discord considers "sensitive", see[24]. How good their automatic filtering systems work remains to be seen, but no system is perfect and there likely will be some overblocking. In other words: while Wikipedia is not censored, Discord will be.Gawaon (talk)13:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CIA World Factbook Shutdown - Best steps moving forward
In any event, this leaves us with a serious problem, given the fact that a significant number of pages rely upon the Factbook as a generalized reference for geographic data, demographic and commercial statistical figures, and concise geopolitical history. Most crucially, the first and second of these are widely present in the infoboxes fornumerous countries andethnic groups. The fact that the website was effectively shut down entirely as of the 4th makes the matter of reviewing and overhauling affected pages all the more urgent.
This is a condensed version of a message that's been posted toWikiProject Geography, which can be foundhere. I'm not certain that this is the best place to post this, so if anyone knows of a better location, it would be greatly appreciated if you'd recommend it. Regardless, for the immediate moment, I think that it's best that the discussion be hosted there. My thanks in advance, and best wishes to all.
Inominated this for In the News but some regulars there are actively hostile to news that's of special interest to Wikipedians. There are many such developments lately -- the downsizing of theWashington Post, the demise of mass-market paperbacks, the fuss aboutarchive.today. Perhaps the Village Pump should have its own news section to list such items?
Wrote up a pair of essays that seemed long overdue, dealing with two aspects of, bluntly, bad Wikipedia journalism. Hoping to solicit feedback, edits, and further examples of both before moving them to projectspace.
User:Rhododendrites/Diffpicking - Nutshell: Everything anyone has ever said or done on Wikipedia is archived forever. At the level of an individual change, inconsequential changes that were ignored or undone appear as identical to those with lasting effects. Careful selection of these "diffs" without their context can thus be used to construct any narrative you want about Wikipedia or any subject on Wikipedia.
Someone asked "how will you get these in front of journalists", which is fair, but I'm not thinking about that yet. For now, I'm just looking for help with the content of the essays. Thanks for taking a look! —Rhododendritestalk \\17:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites, I've often wondered what the effect of revdel or OS could be on diffs. Could it provide incorrect attribution, especially if admins aren't careful? Imagine that Alice adds A, and Bob adds B. An admin deletes Alice's revision but not Bob's, thus making it look like Bob added A and B. I think this comes up inWikipedia:History merging sometimes (maybe another thing to mention).WhatamIdoing (talk)21:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RevDel or OS would make it impossible to see which of A+B was due to Alice and which to Bob, but (absentbugs like T277920) it should be just as clear that the combined change A+B was due to both Alice and Bob as it is when someone looks at a multi-revision diff that doesn't involve RevDel or OS. Selective (un)deletion, poorly done history merges, and uncareful imports, on the other hand, can and do lead to the sort of problem you imagine.Anomie⚔00:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to think of whether I've seen a diff cited in any public-facing place that involved revdel/os. May be worth a note, though, and I'd welcome either of you adding it. —Rhododendritestalk \\14:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue I think is that news outlets nearly only report about two things: supposed gender gaps and since recently AI. There's countless of other potential subjects such as neglection of technical development by WMF & the Community Wishlists, outdatedness of articles & statistics, problems of too few editors, WP unique coverage of contemporary events and developments via crowdsourcing aggregation and integration, and many other subjects. Haven't seen any case of diffpicking and that seems more about social media than about news articles / journalism.Prototyperspective (talk)12:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
supposed gender gaps and since recently AI - Not sure where you're based, but in the US an awful lot of the coverage in the past few years has been political/ideological, too. It would be useful to find examples that aren't, but many of the cases of diffpicking I've seen started with someone -- often someone on social media rather than the journalist -- posting an "OMG look at this on Wikipedia" story that then gets uncritically picked up. The recession example is the one that made it the furthest into the mainstream of the ones I could think of, but it's something I've definitely seen several times. I think part of what I'd eventually like to do is to compile a "how to read Wikipedia journalism" explainer, but figure it's worth starting with some concepts that I feel like are overdue to be explained. —Rhododendritestalk \\14:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! I'm writing this message because I'm worry about one thing. I fear that one day"Wikipedia" falls under obligation by the laws of countries of the Western world to practice an age verification of its editors.
Also , I fear something more dangerous than age verification. This is identity verification. In some countries , it is mandatory for some websites to practice an age verification. Any law can be amended. Today , we are talking about social networks and NSFW websites , Wikipedia will maybe be concerned in some years or decades.
I did mentionned countries of the Western world because there are events in these countries that we can't imagine to happens there are some years backward. Wikipedia was launched in 2001. In 2001 , who was able to imagine what's happens now ?
I precise that I don't want to talk about politic because of "WP:NOTFORUM" , "WP:NOTESSAY" , "WP:NOTADVOCACY" , "WP:NOTOPINION" , "WP:NOTHERE". I just want to talk about what can we do if one day something like this does happens. Should we modify our soul in order to survive ? For example , I can't imagine that we delete the possibility of a "Temporary account" because a law say that we should verify age of editors or verify the identities and not allow this kind of account.Anatole-berthe (talk)05:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well it needs WMF and national chapters to be active to some extent and represent our interests for being able to stay pseudonymous (or in the case of temporary accounts semi-anonymous). They should explain to the public, politicians and policy-makers why this is important for the volunteer contributors and the health of the projects overall. Maybe what you said applies more to Wikimedia Commons than Wikipedia though. See also the thread about Discord above. The questions you asked is kind of redundant: it won't happen or at least we should do everything we can to prevent it and it doesn't seem all that likely. Blackouts as with SOPA would also be an option but there probably is no need to discuss any of this now.Prototyperspective (talk)11:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can consider that what I said applies more to "Wikimedia Commons" than Wikipedia. Nevertheless , any language version of Wikipedia can use content from Commons. I believe that you're right concerning "WMF" and national chapters.
I don't know if WMF and national chapters are working on the matter. Therefore , I can't say anything positive or negative concerning the work about this matter.
You can imagine an alternative future where it is the community or the foundation rather than external authorities that request identity verification, or more specifically proof that an account is operated by a human rather than a non-human agent.Sean.hoyland (talk)10:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
![[14]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fCommons%3aDeletion_requests%2fFile%3aSimferopol_-_train_station_-_Feb_2011.jpg%23c-JWilz12345-20220721020900-TentingZones1-2022-07-03T13%3a41%3a00.000Z){kind=link}