BETA ZEN
User talk:Mellk
Texto da Wikipédia (en), licença CC BY-SA. O BETARUBI mostra o verbete inteiro nesta página — a leitura não continua fora do site.
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:
|
| This is Mellk's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Infobox places
Just now you undid my edit stating "please see previous discussions"
. Can you please provide a link to these discussions, because I wasn't able to find any. Gigman (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have been more specific. There have been some similar changes in the past with these biographies and this has been something discussed. I will try to find the relevant discussions. Mellk (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- See for example this and this. I must admit I did not remember which exact talk pages there were such discussions, but this is something that has been continually reverted. Mellk (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hm, so there's no centralized discussion regarding this topic yet? Maybe we should start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes to finally establish a commuity consensus, if users still change and revert edits now and then. It worked with Baltic infoboxes back in autumn, it should also work this time (and it shouldn't be as controversial as that one was) Gigman (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- We already have MOS:GEOLINK when it comes to linking. There have been centralized discussions for similar issues before but I've lost track of them. I can find for example this discussion but there is no community consensus on how historical states are mentioned in the infobox. Mellk (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I see, the current way strikes me as not fulfilling both Linking and Infobox guidelines.
- Per MOS:GEOLINK:
If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is a former country or entity, it is acceptable to link both, e.g. Kumrovec, Austria-Hungary.
- Per Template:Personbox#birth_place:
Place of birth: city, administrative region, country. Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976).
- Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Place should also be considered, as format for Russia stands out there (almost like the US does, where state is always present in infos).
- I personally think the RFC should take place, I'll prepare it some time in the future if you have no objections. Gigman (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Looks like this was recently changed. Honestly, it is difficult to keep track of such changes. For several years, the documentation for Template:Infobox person stated that modern-day countries should be mentioned in the main text rather than the infobox when it came to birthplaces and deathplaces, but this was undone some months ago. As usual, no RfC or anything. Whether political regime should be specified or not seems to depend on a case-by-case basis. Mellk (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, so they're changing the actual guidelines in real time too? That's certainly interesting, strange how there's still no final consensus. Gigman (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, this is supposed to reflect the consensus achieved via discussion, but I am not really interested in being the judge. Mellk (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I checked that discussion, and I think the birthplaces question is a MOS:INFOBOX and not MOS:GEOLINK issue, it can only be resolved via a dedicated discussion thru specific Russian Empire poll. I'll just copy the template from my previous RFC, hopefully it will pass. Thanks for all the details. Gigman (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, there has been the same issue with other countries as well. Take for example Germany (whether it should instead be "German Empire", "Nazi Germany" etc.) and France (whether it should instead be "Kingdom of France" or if there should be links to previous governments such as French Fourth Republic). But it probably does not make sense to have something so broad. What I think makes the most sense is that if the place is still located within the modern-day country, then the short name is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's 50\50 with those. Some have historic names, others omit them. Either way, I've seen each designation on my editing journey, it's better if discussion will focus on one case at a time imo, less clutter Gigman (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
What I think makes the most sense is that if the place is still located within the modern-day country, then the short name is sufficient
- For me historical context is as important as geographical location, even if it seems like a detail overkill at first. After all, it's an encyclopedia, and the guidelines provide "Saigon aka Ho Chi Minh City" example for a reason. Gigman (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)- I think this is only for the names of cities rather than the name of the state. It wouldn't make sense to use the current name if the city was historically known by a different name at the time. Mellk (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the same logic apply to states, if it's applied to their cities? After all, Carthage was the capital of Ancient Carthage, and not Tunisia. However, what confuses me the most is a complete omission of any administrative regions when it comes to Russian Empire, though countries should have them according to guidelines (and most do). So RFC might be the only way to solve all of these questions. Gigman (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- The Russian Empire was also (and more commonly) known as Russia at the time, though. If someone was born in Moscow, for example, there is not really any benefit in writing "Russian Empire" instead. We also do not include subdivisions if it is redundant (this is mentioned in the documentation for the template). Therefore, if someone was born in Moscow, we should not include "Moscow Governorate". MOS:IBP also says:
The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
. - I am not opposed to a RfC for increased clarity, but it is probably better to start a discussion somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia before proceeding with RfC. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- USA was and still is known simply as America, but infoboxes always use "United States", so I don't think we should consider colloquialisms, but rather stick to official names for encyclopedic value, which is also why in my opinion redundant subdivisions must be included, though I wasn't able to find the exact guideline regarding them so far. However, I was aware about "Moscow, Moscow Governorate" tautology rule, that should indeed be avoided. May I ask why do you think a discussion should be started before the RfC? As you showed, many were already but we still face same edit conflicts. Gigman (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that counts as a colloquialism. The problem with "America" is that it can refer to an entire continent. If we stick to official names only, then that must mean for most countries now we cannot use the short name at all.
- I suggested a discussion there first since this is more centralized (I only recall discussions about whether union republics should be included in the infobox rather than long/short names). Other editors can also give input (maybe I missed something). These discussions I mentioned are individual disputes only. Mellk (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps the US was not a particularly good example, but you can draw same parallels with Ottoman Empire\Turkey or Holy Roman Empire\Germany. Even the Soviet Union was also reffered to by many simply as Russia, even to non-RSFSR parts of it. Either way, I'm affraid that starting a discussion at wikiproject Russia will likely result in expected outcome (since Russian Wikipedia does infoboxes thoroughly). IMO getting straight to RfC that will inevitably spark a discussion anyway is a better use of everyone's time. Gigman (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think a better comparison would be "Kingdom of France" and "France", "German Empire" and "Germany", "Kingdom of Italy" and "Italy", and so on.
- Per WP:RFCBEFORE it is best to have a centralized discussion first (e.g. WikiProject talk page) since this concerns the infoboxes of all biographies. Mellk (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, let's proceed with the discussion first then. I'm not sure how to frame it in non RfC format cohesively though. Gigman (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- There is no fixed format. You can just write a question, for example: "Should the birthplace/deathplace in infoboxes for biographies say 'Russian Empire' or 'Russia' for the years 1721–1917?" Mellk (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Wait, I think I see what you mean now, you're talking about dropping unnecessary words like "Kingdom" or "Empire" for the sake of briefness. But in this case I'm affraid we will have some persons who were born in now-defunct kingdoms, and others from the same time period who were born in "modern countries", despite all of them calling themselves kingdoms equally back then. This could be rather confusing. Also, most countries have separate articles about each chapter of their history anyway, so why link a country page when we can link it's time period in question right away?Gigman (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Take for example Berlin. If someone was born in Berlin before German unification, then I think we should just write "Berlin, Prussia". If they were born after German unification, then I think we should just write "Berlin, Germany". Take the infobox of Adolf Hitler as an example.
- But there is no site-wide consensus here. I think the only such consensus we have is to write "England", "Scotland" etc. rather than "United Kingdom". Mellk (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Wait, I think I see what you mean now, you're talking about dropping unnecessary words like "Kingdom" or "Empire" for the sake of briefness. But in this case I'm affraid we will have some persons who were born in now-defunct kingdoms, and others from the same time period who were born in "modern countries", despite all of them calling themselves kingdoms equally back then. This could be rather confusing. Also, most countries have separate articles about each chapter of their history anyway, so why link a country page when we can link it's time period in question right away?Gigman (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- There is no fixed format. You can just write a question, for example: "Should the birthplace/deathplace in infoboxes for biographies say 'Russian Empire' or 'Russia' for the years 1721–1917?" Mellk (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, let's proceed with the discussion first then. I'm not sure how to frame it in non RfC format cohesively though. Gigman (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps the US was not a particularly good example, but you can draw same parallels with Ottoman Empire\Turkey or Holy Roman Empire\Germany. Even the Soviet Union was also reffered to by many simply as Russia, even to non-RSFSR parts of it. Either way, I'm affraid that starting a discussion at wikiproject Russia will likely result in expected outcome (since Russian Wikipedia does infoboxes thoroughly). IMO getting straight to RfC that will inevitably spark a discussion anyway is a better use of everyone's time. Gigman (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- USA was and still is known simply as America, but infoboxes always use "United States", so I don't think we should consider colloquialisms, but rather stick to official names for encyclopedic value, which is also why in my opinion redundant subdivisions must be included, though I wasn't able to find the exact guideline regarding them so far. However, I was aware about "Moscow, Moscow Governorate" tautology rule, that should indeed be avoided. May I ask why do you think a discussion should be started before the RfC? As you showed, many were already but we still face same edit conflicts. Gigman (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- The Russian Empire was also (and more commonly) known as Russia at the time, though. If someone was born in Moscow, for example, there is not really any benefit in writing "Russian Empire" instead. We also do not include subdivisions if it is redundant (this is mentioned in the documentation for the template). Therefore, if someone was born in Moscow, we should not include "Moscow Governorate". MOS:IBP also says:
- Shouldn't the same logic apply to states, if it's applied to their cities? After all, Carthage was the capital of Ancient Carthage, and not Tunisia. However, what confuses me the most is a complete omission of any administrative regions when it comes to Russian Empire, though countries should have them according to guidelines (and most do). So RFC might be the only way to solve all of these questions. Gigman (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is only for the names of cities rather than the name of the state. It wouldn't make sense to use the current name if the city was historically known by a different name at the time. Mellk (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, there has been the same issue with other countries as well. Take for example Germany (whether it should instead be "German Empire", "Nazi Germany" etc.) and France (whether it should instead be "Kingdom of France" or if there should be links to previous governments such as French Fourth Republic). But it probably does not make sense to have something so broad. What I think makes the most sense is that if the place is still located within the modern-day country, then the short name is sufficient. Mellk (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I checked that discussion, and I think the birthplaces question is a MOS:INFOBOX and not MOS:GEOLINK issue, it can only be resolved via a dedicated discussion thru specific Russian Empire poll. I'll just copy the template from my previous RFC, hopefully it will pass. Thanks for all the details. Gigman (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, this is supposed to reflect the consensus achieved via discussion, but I am not really interested in being the judge. Mellk (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, so they're changing the actual guidelines in real time too? That's certainly interesting, strange how there's still no final consensus. Gigman (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Looks like this was recently changed. Honestly, it is difficult to keep track of such changes. For several years, the documentation for Template:Infobox person stated that modern-day countries should be mentioned in the main text rather than the infobox when it came to birthplaces and deathplaces, but this was undone some months ago. As usual, no RfC or anything. Whether political regime should be specified or not seems to depend on a case-by-case basis. Mellk (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- We already have MOS:GEOLINK when it comes to linking. There have been centralized discussions for similar issues before but I've lost track of them. I can find for example this discussion but there is no community consensus on how historical states are mentioned in the infobox. Mellk (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hm, so there's no centralized discussion regarding this topic yet? Maybe we should start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes to finally establish a commuity consensus, if users still change and revert edits now and then. It worked with Baltic infoboxes back in autumn, it should also work this time (and it shouldn't be as controversial as that one was) Gigman (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- See for example this and this. I must admit I did not remember which exact talk pages there were such discussions, but this is something that has been continually reverted. Mellk (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)