For previous episodes of Talk Page hilarity, seeUser:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive /2 /3 /4 /5 /6

I had some discussion with Nikkimaria, after yours, atUser talk:Nikkimaria#David Bowie; then added a discussion atTemplate talk:Infobox person#How narrowly to read "city" of birth/death? Also pinged you from both places. You may or may not want to participate (further). – .Raven  ^.talk01:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do that. Cheers,Bretonbanquet (talk)09:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am very sorry to report thatEagleash has passed away. Since your talk page was one of his most edited pages, I thought I should let you know.Graham8712:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: I am very sorry indeed to hear this news; I very much enjoyed chatting with him over the years. I believe I owed him a message, and I'll always regret not replying now. Thanks so much for letting me know, I really appreciate it. All the best to you.Bretonbanquet (talk)13:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to join theAC/DC WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related toAC/DC. If you are interested in joining, please visit theproject page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank you. —VAUGHANJ.(TALK)05:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few months, there has been a conflict regarding the repeated removal of sourced material on the article for "Sara". The disputed information in question is the presence of thetack piano in the personnel section. The liner notes found in the 2015 deluxe edition ofTusk mention that Nicks played the tack piano on "Sara" andKen Caillat has also verified this information, but the instrument has been repeatedly removed by several IP addresses, which might be operated by the same person. Despite several attempts to reach out through the IP's talk pages and the article's talk page, the editor has not provided any explanations for their actions. Do you have any potential solutions to resolve this matter? Hope you're doing well!Dobbyelf62 (talk)18:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: Hi, all good here, hope you're well! Yes, that seems a little odd. There's no question about the credit or the sourcing, so I wonder what his problem is. It's very likely the same person; it's too obscure to be different people. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it persists to a strong enough degree, the article could be semi-protected, or an admin can wade through it and block the IPs. The bar is reasonably high for that though; at the moment an admin would tell us to simply revert for now. Let's see if he keeps it up. Cheers!Bretonbanquet (talk)17:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly peculiar. I noticed that the same edit was made today on November 11th under a different IP address, although you kindly reverted it. This activity has been occurring since September 14, and it appears that nearly all of these accounts are exclusively dedicated towards removing the tack piano. One IP address[1] previously made unsourced additions to the personnel sections of various Fleetwood Mac articles and another IP address was blocked[2] for a period of one month, but the behavior has continued through other IP addresses. As demonstrated by their edit history, it is likely the same person operating through different IP addresses.Dobbyelf62 (talk)02:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two IPs you've mentioned there are both based in New England, but the one I reverted yesterday is from Washington state. That said, I still think it's the same guy. I just don't know what his problem is. We could probably get those blocked as he is technically evading the block, but as you say, he'll just skip to another IP. It's probably a case of whack-a-mole at the moment, and let's hope he gets bored. I'll continue to revert where I see it!Bretonbanquet (talk)17:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person is persistent. On two additional occasions since November 12th, the tack piano has been removed without an explanation. Fortunately, I have the article on my watchlist and have been able to detect these changes within a few hours of the edit. Still, it would probably be best to request semi-protection for the article to stop this behavior. What are the steps needed to accomplish this?Dobbyelf62 (talk)22:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make a requesthere, which I've done. There might not be enough disruption for semi-protection, it sort of depends on the admin who takes it up. But it's done; let's see what happens.Bretonbanquet (talk)21:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We got lucky! We got a really good admin who semi-protected it. We should be okay for a while.Bretonbanquet (talk)21:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your work on improving and maintaining Wikipedia. I appreciate your good faith edits ofEmil Andres andBill Schindler, however, I restored them to the previous versions I had inserted. The WDC language regarding points and participation in WDC events is the result of a consensus reached among the Formula 1 and American Open-Wheel Racing wikiprojects. Can I request that you not reword that language?

Thanks, and best regards,RegalZ8790 (talk)17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to that consensus, please? I find that astonishing.Bretonbanquet (talk)18:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was, and still am, learning where and how to have discussions. Sorry if that astonishes you. The discussion may have taken place on a driver talk page. @DH85868993 and @Doctorindy participated in this discussion. I don't remember where it was, but I now believeWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport would be the place to further a discussion.

RegalZ8790 (talk)18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, what astonishes me after 18 years of editing Wikipedia is that wording as bad as that could have attained a consensus anywhere. If you revert someone quoting a consensus, you really need to be able to back it up. Editors honestly don't need to ask permission from a WikiProject to change bad wording on the say-so of one other editor. Your wording says "Drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship points" which is flat out misleading. I look forward to the input of the two editors you've tagged.Bretonbanquet (talk)18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don'trecall there being a discussion to establish the wording (which isn't to say therewasn't one; if there was one, it probably would have been many years ago, and I may have just forgotten about it). But Bretonbanquet is correct; drivers weren't automatically credited with WDC points just for participating in the Indy 500; so the current wording is misleading.DH85868993 (talk)00:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was onMauri Rose's talk page, but it is no longer there. I do agree with @Bretonbanquet that the language is misleading. It was probably developed with more notable drivers in mind.

What do we think about "drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to accumulate points outside of those which they received towards the AAA/USAC National Championship"?

Breton, open to your language insight here.

RegalZ8790 (talk)01:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegalZ8790 Yes, something along those lines. It might be good to name those extra points for which drivers were eligible, just for clarity, so maybe something like:"drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to receive/score WDC points alongside those which they received towards the AAA/USAC National Championship".

I do have an issue with the word 'accumulate' being used, as most of these guys scored no WDC points at all, and 'accumulate' is a word only used to describe amassing larger numbers of things. You can't accumulate nothing, zero, or one point, or whatever. So I'd be happier with "receive" or "score" in this case, so e.g. "He scored no points" or "he failed to score points".Bretonbanquet (talk)16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the word 'score'? I feel this implies the points were actively earned. 'Receive' sounds more passive in my opinion.

I feel the rest of the wording is an improvement.RegalZ8790 (talk)17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegalZ8790 Absolutely, yes, I prefer "score" as well for that exact reason.Bretonbanquet (talk)17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet How about "may/might have scored" in regards to the AAA/USAC points? Only the drivers of the top ten or so cars received these points during the 1950-1960 era.

"drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to score WDC pointsalongside/in addition to those which they might have scored towards the AAA/USAC National Championship"

RegalZ8790 (talk)17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegalZ8790 Yes, happy with "may have" or "might have" (either is good, I think, unless people are extremely picky).

I think "alongside" is better than "in addition to" because the points aren't being added together; they're kept separate, and it might be misleading.Bretonbanquet (talk)17:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

"drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to score WDC points alongside those which they may have scored towards the AAA/USAC National Championship"

RegalZ8790 (talk)17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegalZ8790 Looks fine to me!Bretonbanquet (talk)17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet Excellent. Thank you for the suggestions!RegalZ8790 (talk)17:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegalZ8790 Any time.Bretonbanquet (talk)17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Bestial.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiJust wanted to notify you of this, seems you were active on similar discussions and AfDs but the Lewis Hamilton win list and other such lists are proposed for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton159.242.125.170 (talk)14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 2 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 3. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 3 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 4 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 5 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 6 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 8 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 9 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F1 driver results legend 7 has beennominated for merging withTemplate:F1 driver results legend 2. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.Gonnym (talk)08:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Atkinsvictimofchanges.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you restored a sentence saying that "none of Kirwan's releaseswas commercially successful" on Kirwan's Wikipedia page. I know that the article is written in British English, but is this sentence written properly. Seeing that the word "releases" is being invoked (a plural word), "were" would be far more appropriate here.Dobbyelf62 (talk)17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"None" is a contraction of "not one". Not one of themwas, notwere.Bretonbanquet (talk)22:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Youldennowhereroad.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATED states we should avoid "–present"except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly. With F1 contracts, which are updated avidly by the community, this is not the case. Simply putting "2025" is more likely to become dated in the instance ofAndrea Kimi Antonelli and is unclear whether this is a past, present or future event; "2025–present" makes it abundantly clear it is an ongoing range that started this year, and has not ended.MB243714:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mb2437: Firstly, thanks for bringing it to talk. I've got a few issues with "2025–present", not least that it isn't a valid daterange. To be a valid daterange, the first date has to be prior to the second, and 2025is the present. I have less of an issue with the principle of a range starting in the present year, but we should format it differently if that were the context. Also, "2025" isn't likely to become dated for the very reasons you say we don't need to avoid "–present", i.e. the page is monitored and updated regularly and isn't likely to go out of date. "2025" is perfectly clear that it's a current event, given that this year is 2025. It's further clarified in the text of that section.

The other issue is that Antonelli only has a one-year contract, therefore we cannot imply that it's an "ongoing range". That would be predicting the future, suggesting that a contract extension beyond 2025 is a foregone conclusion. His contract hasn't ended, but neither has an extension been confirmed, or even discussed. His contract is for the 2025 season only, so "2025" is a valid subsection heading.

One way out of it would be to use an earlier date in the first part of the daterange, given that he did take part in sessions for Mercedes in 2024, and was employed by the team for years prior to that.Bretonbanquet (talk)21:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if there is a specific format that we should adhere to when organizing the musicians in the personnel section. These are the three options that I can think of:

• By seniority
• Alphabetical order
• As listed in the liner notes

I am fine with either of these metrics, but I would prefer some uniformity when organizing these sections.Dobbyelf62 (talk)23:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: There is style advice (from the WikiProject) atWP:PERSONNEL, and there's lots of useful info there about other aspects of musical articles. Regarding arranging a list of musicians in the personnel section, it says, "It is generally preferable to list the album's personnel in the same order that they are listed on the album packaging; however, local consensus may instead determine to list them in another order."

So it's basically either that, or we decide for ourselves. Liner note order can't really be argued with, although it looks a bit odd in cases where the band change the order around from album to album. Personally I like "vocalist, guitarists (in order of seniority if there are more than one), keyboardist (if applicable), bass guitarist, drummer". That's generally how many bands do it, including all the bands I've been involved with myself. But I would say that alphabetically is my least favoured way of doing it!Bretonbanquet (talk)22:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Often, I'll use vocalist, guitarist, keyboardist, bass guitarist, drummer, horns, strings for albums or songs made by solo artists with session musicians and seniority for bands. Thank you for the information.

@Dobbyelf62: I think that's a good policy.Bretonbanquet (talk)17:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On "Tell Me All the Things You Do", I noticed that you correctly stated that the song was released in France, but the reference I included also indicated that it was released in the Netherlands as well. As such, I have added another reference to accommodate for that. With a new Fleetwood Mac book out titledFleetwood Mac: All the Songs, I have been determining which write-ups are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. For that book, some entries are better written and sourced than others. I have already used it for some pages like "Jewel Eyed Judy" and "Eyes of the World", but I am hesitant to do so for songs that have incorrect or dubious information. The personnel sections in those books are all over the place and I am concerned that a reader of that book will use that as a source. For example, the authors assert that Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie sang backing vocals on "The Ledge" even though Ken Caillat'sGet Tusked book said that Christine McVie only contributed in an instrumental capacity for the initial sessions before her contributions were scrapped. My plan is to be selective withFleetwood Mac: All the Songs, as they actually did their due diligence with the Peter Green era.

My plan is to keep plugging away at existing Fleetwood Mac articles, with priority given to albums, certain songs fromRumours, and potentially some tours. Articles for "Did You Ever Love Me" and "These Strange Times" are forthcoming as I have a decent amount of sources for those; these will likely be the final new articles on Fleetwood Mac songs that I create for a while. If you catch any mistakes or have questions about my edits, you are more than welcome to correct them/reach out. Thank you for your continued help.Dobbyelf62 (talk)17:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew there was a French release because I have a copy; I wasn't aware there had been a Dutch release as well, although it stands to reason, looking at other single releases. I was aware of the book, although I don't have a copy. I think it's best to use your judgement on its accuracy; if something stands out as wrong to you then best not to proceed with it. We'll have to keep a look-out for other editors using it to add incorrect information. If necessary we can trump that book with a better source, like Caillat's book. I think your plan going forward looks good – most, if not all, the most important songs are covered with their own pages now. Some of those would never have stood up as articles without all the extra information you've added, so great work. It's a pleasure to help; some of this work I had planned to look at myself, but realistically I wasn't ever going to get time to do it. All power to you!Bretonbanquet (talk)17:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently sifting through material from theSay You Will era of the band to find some information on Lindsey's songs. For "Come", I have found a few book sources saying that the song isspeculated to be about Lindsey's relationship with Anne Heche, who mentioned the relationship in her memoir. While Lindsey confirmed that "Down on Rodeo" was partially written about his relationship with Heche in aStereogum interview, he had been more cagey about "Come". When asked if the song was written about her in 2003,Buckingham responded with "Um, well, I mean, uh well, since you're asking, I would have to say yes, it is." To me, this statement is not entirely sufficient, so I'm curious if I should avoid any mention of the song's lyrical inspiration in theSay You Will article.Dobbyelf62 (talk)03:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: Hmm, it's a tricky one. He has technically confirmed it, although he doesn't seem very definite about it. I would just stick to the exact text of what he said; perhaps say something like, "When asked if the song was about Heche, he replied..." and quote him exactly. Then the reader can make their own mind up. If it absolutely wasn't about Heche, knowing him, he would've made that clear.Bretonbanquet (talk)16:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I would like to keep information related to each song onSay You Will relatively concise, I have decided to forgo the speculation about Heche and limit the information on "Come" to a few sentences. I attempted to incorporate potential lyrical subject matter into the article, although the exposition that I created was too bulky and would have come across as too tangential in relation to the rest of the album. If I ever create an article for "Come", I would be far more likely to include that information there instead. Even so, "Smile at You" and "Thrown Down" are more likely candidates to receive articles than "Come".Dobbyelf62 (talk)04:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I like your reasoning and I agree with it. It might come across as somewhat titillating in this context. Certainly if there's enough at some point to write a standalone article about "Come", then it would be perfectly relevant there. Great work, as always!Bretonbanquet (talk)21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Denniswhitty.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Bretonbanquet! On behalf of theBirthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you madeyour first edit and became a Wikipedian!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)11:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From theBirthday Committee,CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)12:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bretonbanquet. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a wonderful, happy 2026 ahead. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee❚❙❚❙❙✉17:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit I did yesterday? All I did was just add a link to United Kingdom. How was that overlinking?Eiehel (talk)00:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the guideline (WP:OL) in my edit summary – countries are generally not linked in infoboxes or anywhere else.Bretonbanquet (talk)02:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But in other pages where countries are mentioned most of them are linkedEiehel (talk)02:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they shouldn't be. Guidelines are not optional. This isn't controversial – country names are not to be linked.Bretonbanquet (talk)02:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]