Talk:Estonia

Possible AI generated text

Hi - I tagged this article as possibly AI generated; while this is only a suspicion and not proof, this rewrite by DJ Sturm contains several strong indicators of possible LLM use, as do the user's other edits, and much of this text persists to the current version. Thus, it needs review for accuracy/hallucinations, source-to-text integrity issues, NPOV and/or OR violations (there is some text that violates WP:SYNTH already), and such. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Would it not be preferable to revert to the previous version, instead of leaving behind a tag that will, presumably, be there for months, if not years? intforce (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'll try to remove it, since it's not written in a neutral enough tone anyway. ~2026-31849 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed that with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&diff=prev&oldid=1325607412 @IdrapoelIII's stated attempts to remove the LLM-generated texts were reverted by veteran editor @Moxy and I'm not sure I understand why, and until I get an explanation I feel I should avoid touching this article. It seems some other revisions of the edit in question have remained in place, so it's much too late for a simple revert now anyway. However, the Economic/Public Policy section still has the issue mentioned in the section below ~2026-31849 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BE. IdrapoelIII was confirmed to be a sockpuppet and they made a lot more changes to the text than simply removing LLM-generated text. Mellk (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. So how is the state of the article in regards to LLM-generated text now? ~2026-31849 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Economy/Public policy

This entire section seems like a big OR and NPOV violation to me. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably not OR, but the first paragraph does read like a press release. The current form and second paragraph comes from this edit by a now globally blocked user with a clearly misleading edit summary, probably all needs to be looked at. CMD (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm willing to try to fix that, it's the same edit that above was described as resembling LLM-generated text, so it has to go anyway. ~2026-31849 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I couldn't really find any proof the user was globally or otherwise blocked? Could you link me to the relevant page or log for that? ~2026-31849 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The chapter starts with a sentence: "Estonia is a unitary country with a single-tier local government system and is referred to as an ethnocracy." The question is: where is the reference, or by whom is the country being "referred to as an ethnocracy"?~2026-46830 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed it. It was also not related to the rest of the paragraph which describes the government structure. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Short description of Baltic states

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

---

Which is the best short description for Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania?

• A) Country in the Baltic region of Europe
• B) Country in Northern Europe
• C) Baltic country in Europe
• D) Other descriptions

GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: This RFC is not about article leads. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• (Notified by a bot) Support D: Baltic country - It is the most specific and commonly understood label for the trio, it is shorter than option A, and it avoids the sometimes disputed framing of whether each one is "Northern Europe". Adding "in Europe" is also redundant for a short description.Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support D: Baltic country in Northern Europe. See also Baltic region for the template "Earth's primary regions and subregions". -- Neptuunium (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  All Baltic countries are in Northern Europe, so the last three words convey no information beyond that provided by the first two. Largoplazo (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Baltic country" has two quite different meanings, however. One is a regional term, the other is ethnolinguistic. Latvia and Lithuania fit both descriptions. Estonia only fits the first. A directional description would be more appropriate, as all other European countries simply have a directional designation in the short description. ExRat (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• B: All three countries are in Northern Europe, per United Nations geoscheme and plenty other sources concerning geography (note: including school curriculum textbooks in the Baltic states themselves). Alternatively, could be A D: "Baltic country in Northern Europe". --Mindaur (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
• D: "Baltic country". Seems obvious that that's all that's needed, other options are reminiscent of the primary schoolkids' "Europe, Norther Hemisphere, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way..." DeCausa (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
• B ExRat makes a fair point (below in Discussion) about the short desc of every other European country. I generally don't have the "consistency" obsession but, fair enough, I can't see any particular reason for these countries to be different. DeCausa (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
• B, or D: "Baltic country". The other two options are redundant, as there aren't Baltic countries or Baltic regions in any other part of the world. Keep in mind, the only purpose for the SD is as a terse identification. For someone who doesn't know what "Baltic" means, it still at least explains the article is about a country rather than about a music instrument or a geological formation. If it doesn't also explain what "Baltic" means, that's fine, that isn't part of its mission. There aren't countries named Lithuania in Southeast Asia or countries named Estonia in the Caribbean that need to be distinguished. Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
• D: Treat them individually (even if the result is that their SDs are all the same anyway). After following the discussion some more since my first !vote, I've changed my mind. I realized I'd come at this from my perspective as someone who was around long before the breakup of the Soviet Union, at which time I knew them as "the Baltic states", "the former Baltic SSRs", etc. But now, rather than looking upon them as a matched set until the end of time based on their geopolitical status and their conventional grouping more than 35 years ago, they should be treated on their own. That being the case, that doesn't mean they couldn't, in theory, wind up with the same SD anyway. "Baltic country" would be accurate for all of them. But, as noted below in the discussion, they aren't any more Baltic than Finland or Poland is. But I also agree that "Baltic" by itself may be insufficiently descriptive, which may justify redundancy: "Baltic region of (Northern Europe/Eastern Europe/Europe)". Moving on, it's foolish to identify the country in the SD in a manner different from the way it's identified in the lead. All three articles place their respective countries in "the Baltic region of X", but X is "Northern Europe" for Estonia and Latvia and just Europe for Lithuania, which is weird. It might be worth conforming those, though if Lithuania is considered to be in Eastern Europe or Central Europe, then its lead should say that. And, again, the SD for each should mirror the lead in terms of where it says the country is. Sorry if this is complicated. Largoplazo (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
• B simply for the fact the term Baltic may not be a common term to many people. No point using terms in a short description if they need to be searched or explained.Moxy🍁 16:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
• D Country in northeastern Europe. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support D: country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe. I could not imagine it was a sensitive topic. I checked several sources and it seems that the current wording is quite common even if it is obviously redundant.Michael Boutboul (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Please consider WP:SD40. HKLionel TALK 14:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry for the confusion Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• D: as determined at each article, per Largoplazo. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
• B as no other short description for any country in Europe is listed as a regional subset and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania shouldn't singled out as exceptions. Every European country's short description is a directional location (Northern, Eastern, Southern, Western). Also, "Baltic country" has two meanings: regional and ethno-linguistic. Estonia is included in the first, but it isn't part of the latter. ExRat (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
• D: list them on a case-by-case basis. I have no opinion on Estonia and Latvia. Meanwhile, Lithuania has a note in its lead that explains how international organisations treat Lithuania (northern, eastern, central or northeastern Europe). There were edit wars (they started around 2017 when the United Nations started listing Lithuania in northern Europe) regarding that in lead in the past, and then there was a discussion about it in which it was decided to use the more neutral formation and a note at the end of the first sentence was added. – sbaio 18:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support C because it's short, precise, academic, and clearly separates them from Nordic and Eastern European countries.

A is too wordy and doesn't have a nice flow for a short description. B is "technically" correct but not as precise as C. Frankserafini87 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• B seems clearly the best, at least for Estonia and Latvia (Lithuania could also use other options; it is sometimes even listed as a Central Europe country). Ivo (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
• C per common useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

  Common? #Baltic as a term Moxy🍁 14:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• D: Baltic country in Northern Europe. My only concern while adding it was reflecting the primary information in the lead, country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe, which can be shortened to Baltic country in Northern Europe. All other arguments are redundant and unnecessary as the purpose of SDs is to complement the title with useful information, which including both "Baltic" and "Northern Europe" would most effectively achieve. HKLionel TALK 14:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment. As stated above: "Baltic country" has two very different meanings. One is regional and would apply to all three countries. However, the other is ethnolinguistic. Estonia is not a "Baltic country" in this sense and it could be confusing. ExRat (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• D: Country in Northern and Eastern Europe like it's done with Spain. I think most people don't get what this RFC is about so i'll just leave it here to cause more confusion. Gigman (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
• B to stay consistent with other European articles and keep it simple enough for the average reader. Although D ("Baltic country in Northern Europe") would be fine as well. I don't think most readers outside Europe will know what the Baltics are and our other European articles don't use this kind of description, but adding the one additional word doesn't seem detrimental. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close, invalid Rfc – this Rfc should be immediately closed and reopened at another time. The given Rfc options do not include the option actually suggested by WP:Short description itself, which is no short description for countries, per WP:SDNONE. There is no way a closer can close an Rfc that does not include the most obvious choice, namely the one given by the page itself. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is an egregious application of SDNONE. Yes, countries are assumed to be self-explanatory terms in SDs, but not if they are the primary subject of the article. According to this logic, every self-explanatory subject would have a blank SD, which is unfeasible, unhelpful to the reader, and a mass overturn of standing consensus. HKLionel TALK 23:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  Your comment that countries are assumed to be self-explanatory terms in SDs is all you need to know to come up with the right vote in this Rfc. And you are also right about the consequences of following the logic, which is the logic spelled out in WP:SDPURPOSE, with two dozen examples. If you think that empty SD is unhelpful to the reader, then you do not understand what short description is for, or where it appears. For starters, short description never appears in articles so users get no help from it there, regardless how long it is. For a detailed discussion about this, see § Invalid Rfc below. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  It is your choice to attempt to overturn consensus of such magnitude, but appearance in articles is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the applications of SDs. HKLionel TALK 00:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  If you want to ignore the purpose of short description as stated on the project page itself in favor of a claimed consensus, then you ought to be able to state what the consensus is. So please tell me what short description is for, according to this consensus? And concretely, how would I apply it to, say, Germany? Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I acknowledge that your logic makes sense, and there are many possible interpretations of the purpose of SDs, but I'm just saying it would be a gargantuan effort to overhaul every single country short description, as well as possible other topics that fall under this logic, so I don't think it's necessary to fix something that isn't a pressing issue. If consensus is reached to undergo this effort, then I will happily help apply SDs as they should be. I have no strong opinion on the use of blank SDs anymore due to strong arguments presented by different editors, including you. Cheers, HKLionel TALK 13:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your responses, because it makes me think about mine, and I sometimes have to refine or have another look, and see what I haven't considered. We agree on a couple of several things. First, it's not pressing, and maybe doesn't need fixing. To my mind, it does have aspects of the How many angels can dance on the head of a pin question; in the grand scheme of things, how important is this, anyway? It's not even visible in articles. Yes, it would be a gargantuan effort, as you say but in a 7.1-million article encyclopedia, there are questions like that sometimes; luckily, there's WP:NODEADLINE. And finally, I don't have a strong opinion how it should come out either, and like you, I just want it to come out in the way that is best for our readers; if consensus doesn't align with my view, I'll happily implement it anyway. Nice 'meeting' you, HKLionel. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed, ultimately this is no big deal, as there's no way to ensure that the SD perpetually reflects consensus as newer voices enter and editors leave to work on new tasks. And unlike other discussions on controversial topics, when all the dust is settled, it seems laughable to care this much, yet focusing on details and coming together to try and see how best we can help the encyclopedia is how Wikipedia has reached where it is now. I absolutely see where you're coming from and your interpretation of the original principles on which SDs were meant to be applied, which I respect, but as others have pointed out, jumping straight to SDNONE probably wasn't the best way to interject into this discussion. Again, I see your points, but I'd advise you take them to WT:SHORTDESC—indeed, I think you'll find the WT:SHORTDESC#Use of SDNONE discussion relevant. Thanks for this constructive discussion and pleasure to meet you as well! HKLionel TALK 19:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: hmm, I read that you've unsubscribed, so pinging you just in case you'd like to make your voice heard on the general SDNONE area. Cheers, HKLionel TALK 19:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  I support this. Indeed this particular RFC has plenty of problems and a lot of people have misunderstood it. Gigman (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I was looking at this RfC before and did not see how any of the choices were necessary. I could perhaps imagine "Country" being helpful occasionally, but the rest is decorative. CMD (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support B per @LordCollaboration - Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• A : as ‘Baltic’ is more precise geographically and characteristic. Northern Europe would include the British isles, and Iceland. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
• B is the clearest and most consistent, then D. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• A or B - Either will do. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

My goal here to to have the same short description for all three Baltic countries. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Why? Linguistically they are not the same, Estonians speak a Finnic language, whereas Lithuanians and Latvians speak East Baltic languages. Lithuania was, for a large part of its history, associated with Poland, which is not true for the other states. Finally, Estonia is further to the north than the other states. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You are right, but why would the linguistic or historical aspects matter for a geographic question? -- Mindaur (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. @Kelob2678: this is about geography. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

None of these details has any reason to be reflected in any way in the short description since, for an article about a modern country, none of them is relevant to the purpose of the short description. Therefore, they have no influence on what the short descriptions for each will be, let alone on whether they're all the same. Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Had this been only about geographical labeling, this would not be so controversial. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who's trying to jam any other information into a short description for these countries misunderstands the purpose of short descriptions and guidelines for their use. Largoplazo (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Or they just don't want to follow the guidelines, which are not mandatory. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

People don't generally treat the guidelines as being things that hundreds of people have spent many person-years hammering out just for fun, and going on to ignore them according to their whims so that Wikipedia becomes a sloppy mess. Unless there's a compelling reason not to conform to the guidelines ("I don't want to" or "it pleases me not to" isn't a compelling reason) in a particular case, the appropriate approach is to follow the guidelines, and consensus will generally tend in that direction. Largoplazo (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is your strong will to characterize three different countries with the same term. Why are you pushing this? Estonia and Latvia are culturally Northern European while Lithuania is culturally Central European. Estonia is ethnically Finnic while Latvia and Lithuania are ethnically Baltic - these things obviously still matter for nation states that are largely based on dominant indigenous ethnic groups. Wanting to take away the characteristic that Estonia is a Northern European country is just bad faith behavior. ~2026-77398 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: please note, the IP is likely another sock of a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with sources, you could have the best argument, if it does not come from a reliable sources it is not valuable. I am far from an expert of the region, if you know a RS saying that the three countries should not be called Baltic countries then give this source, otherwise this talk is useless in Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

.. while Lithuania is culturally Central European: Just because Lithuania was a very different state centuries ago, doesn't necessarily define it culturally today. Rest assured, many people in Lithuania see the country as Northern Europe. More to the point: so far, nobody presented the argument why, for the short description, we should take the cultural definition, rather than the geographic one. -- Mindaur (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Formatting example. There should be a signature or at least a date (five tildes) after the question and before the first heading. That allows the bot to put the question at a central noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see an immediate need for a shared short description. - Neptuunium (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily about having a shared shortdesc, but about resolving some edit-warring. Consider the situation twelve months ago:

• Estonia - Country in Northern Europe
• Latvia - Country in Northern Europe
• Lithuania - Country in Europe

Since then, ignoring quickly-reverted edits that were obvious accidents or vandalism, we have had these edits to the shortdescs of the three country articles:

• 03:30, 16 March 2025
• 08:07, 16 March 2025 (cosmetic)
• 01:05, 17 March 2025
• 04:12, 17 March 2025 (cosmetic)
• 22:31, 19 March 2025
• 13:40, 23 March 2025
• 16:06, 12 July 2025
• 16:12, 12 July 2025
• 21:27, 13 July 2025
• 04:49, 14 July 2025
• 03:27, 28 July 2025 (cosmetic)
• 03:28, 28 July 2025
• 01:57, 14 August 2025
• 04:02, 4 November 2025 (cosmetic)
• 10:12, 30 December 2025
• 18:01, 30 December 2025
• 23:04, 30 December 2025
• 09:15, 31 December 2025
• 10:25, 31 December 2025
• 10:38, 31 December 2025
• 11:05, 31 December 2025
• 13:21, 31 December 2025
• 16:35, 31 December 2025
• 23:44, 31 December 2025
• 23:46, 31 December 2025
• 00:51, 1 January 2026
• 00:52, 1 January 2026
• 00:52, 1 January 2026
• 18:41, 1 January 2026
• 15:53, 2 January 2026
• 05:14, 3 January 2026

From this we find that Lithuania has been most stable, and the majority of such edits were at Estonia. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There is internationaly and politicly already accepted short description as "Baltic states/Baltic countries" in fact it has been used consistently in English to refer to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for last 100 years. It has became widely accepted in international diplomacy and scholarship.

I have no idea why you are not proposing it, instead of some new terms that have never been used. BerzinsJanis (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Is that not "C) Baltic country in Europe"? LordCollaboration (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

:It seems to me that an appropriate SD for all of them would likely be the same, but there's no reason for that to override any consensus reached for other reasons by discussion participants at the respective articles' talk pages. Largoplazo (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

For those of you who want inconsistencies? By all means support different options for each country. Though I just don't understand why anybody would want inconsistencies, when their geographic locations are so extremly close. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

As the original initiator of this RFC, I want to point out that the way GoodDay went about it fundamentally wrong, from how it's formulated to a place where it was posted. That's why it causes so much debate and will most likely end with no consensus.

1) The focus should've been on brief locational overview, reffering to that very short sentence that pops up when you do a search on Wiki (and not the article's lead section). For example: Type "Spain" in the search bar (don't even click on the page). The first result is a country with title and a few word short description beneath, in this case "Country in Southern and Western Europe". If you do the same to any Baltic state, some descriptions will state "Country in Northern Europe", while others "Country in the Baltic region of Europe", neither of which are correct. This clarification is absent and some users think the question is about culture or anything else.

2) The location of the RFC itself should've been somewhere like Baltic Region or Europe or any other related geographical \ rule talk pages, since this relates to clearly more than 1 country article. Estonia in particular has little to do with this topic, no more than Latvia or Lithuania.

3) Not enough options, most users have to choose D and type their own answer, since none of the provided ones comprehensively reflect their point of view. This makes reaching a conclusion harder.

I suggest we draw conclusions and close this RFC, to later post a proper version on a different page. Gigman (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand points 1 and 2. As regards 1, that is what everyone is discussing. I don't see a problem. As regards 2, it would make no sense for it to appear on the talk pages of Europe or Baltic Region. This doesn't relate to those articles and it would be quite wrong to discuss this there (in fact, it's verging on WP:NOTFORUM). This is as good a place as any. Generally, I see no grounds for closing this in the way you suggest. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

A lot of editors think this RFC is about the lead section, which it's not. That's point 1. Gigman (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is the place to discuss improvements to that specific article. Talk:Baltic region is for discussing Baltic region, not Estonia; similarly Talk:Europe is for Europe. We're already stretching it to discuss changes to Latvia and Lithuania on this page. When more than one article is to be discussed as a group, the proper place should be the talk page of a Wikiproject that they have in common - the possibilities are therefore Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. But it's here now, and I think we should live with that.

I should point out that at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 86#A place to hold an RFC, GoodDay asked about WikiProject Countries, but was advised (rightly or wrongly) by ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs): I would suggest one of the articles talk pages, and then notify the other two. Similarly, Blueboar (talk · contribs) offered: Pick one of the articles and start the RFC (about all three) there… and then post a notice linking to that RFC at the other articles. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately where a RFC happens is less important than if all potentially interested parties are notified of the RFC. A RFC that affects multiple artiles could be held in multiple locations, all of which would be valid. Although I would agree with DeCausa that the talk page of the Europe or Baltic Region article would be inappropriate as the change doesn't relate to those articles.

There have definitely been RFCs that effect multiple articles that have been held on one of the article's talk pages. It's an entirely acceptable way for the RFC to be run, which is why I suggested it. Other editors may feel it should be held in a different location, but that isn't a reason to close the RFC (per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The RFC location is important since (if chosen correctly) it invites more people to participate + potentially filters out biased individuals. Everything I've mentioned was just an example not a suggestion, I have no idea where this RFC should take place either. If not a different article talk page, perhaps some WikiProject would be a better place, but I cetrainly object against Estonia after all those sock investigations. But nevertheless, as I said it's not the main or only problem with this RFC. Gigman (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Whete a RFC is held is unimportant. The solution to all of those problems are, as I said previously, notification. If you believe a project or other article talk page should know about a RFC then add a neutralally worded notification. It could be done at a WikiProject, but you may then end up with LOCALCON complaints about a project enforcing it's own consensus on articles. You should absolutely never be 'filtering out' editors who you believe are biased, all editors are biased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case by "biased" editors I mean "involved". This topic is not a political one nor a historical, it's just georgaphy. So more neutral editors could've been present, but not here unfortunately. Gigman (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The point of a RFC is the quality of arguments, regardless of who made them. Again if you believe more editors would get involved if this RFC had been held at a different location then notify that location of the RFC here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I did precisely that, see these four edits and these five. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, I can't see how anyone interested in the subject couldn't see at least one of those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, "interested" users will prevent this RFC from ultimately reaching a consensus. Gigman (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

All editors should be involved in consensus building, whether you think them biased or not -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You say that as though there's an imperative that a consensus be reached and that, to that end, particular editors already involved in the discussion rightfully prefer to limit the likelihood that editors with a perspective different from theirs will join it. In fact, the venues for the notice were all germane and properly chosen. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Then this should've been posted on Kaja Kallas talk page, all Estonia and Baltic related questions are being resolved over there for some reason. Gigman (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW - I considered Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board, but it's shut down as inactive. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64: a complaint has been made that there's "not enough" options. I've no objections if @Glebushko0703: wants to add more options. I'll leave that up to you & the others, as to whether that's a proper move. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The subject is already in active stage of debate, it's too late to add more options now in my opinion. Gigman (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tamzin, JMF, FromCzech, and Bazza 7: I've noticed you've edited around "short descriptions". Perhaps you could give your input at this RFC? GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Baltic as a term

Yes, I have a very similar question. Can someone explain why baltic would be an issue (it is a real question) I did not expect it will? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that it should be defined for wider audiences. "Baltic country" assumes that the reader (say, in Asia or Oceania) is already familiar with the European geography. "Northern Europe" is just clearer and more suitable for an aveage reader (mind you, even in Europe, there are a lot of people who mix up "Baltics" with "Balkans"). -- Mindaur (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Baltic region is not in northern Europe geographically, it's clearly more to the south and east. Listing them as northern while ignoring the natural division line (Baltic sea) will only cause more confusion among foreigners. Gigman (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

it's clearly more to the south and east. Check out the map at Europe#Contemporary definition. Southern Europe is countries like Spain, Italy, Greece. How do you get countries like Estonia down there? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Er, just in case, here's an WP:RS source for it being in northern Europe.[1]. (Does make one wonder about the basis of some of the opinions here.) DeCausa (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Just in case there're also sources listing them all as Eastern and Central Europe. So 1 source is not enough to prove anything. Gigman (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Im saying that it's to the south of the rest fo northern Europe. Not in the Sountern Europe... Gigman (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Is southern northern Europe even a thing? Where is the dividing line between this and northern central Europe? It's like trying to define the division between orangey-red and reddy-orange. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It's visibly too south from northern Europe since there's a geographical dividing line (the Baltic sea). It can't be northern Europe, but since "northsouthern" sounds like nonsense, northeastern is a better word to describe it (since it's also very close to eastern Europe) Gigman (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:CS Gigman (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

What about it? DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Not enough sources to list Baltic states as Northern Europe either. I offered a consensus and explained my reasoning. Gigman (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not what WP:CS says. And you have offered zero sources for saying Estonia is not in northern Europe. You have only offered a somewhat flaky WP:OR opinion that it's not. DeCausa (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The one I can remember right now is CIA World Factbook (lists Baltics as Eastern Europe), it's in the article itself. So I suggest you take that into consideration. Gigman (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Almost half of Americans cant even identify European countries let alone know geographical regions. Point of short description is to aid in finding things."Survey: 44% Of American's Can't Correctly Spot Countries in The EU". ETIAS News & Information. Moxy🍁 18:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What proportion are able to locate the European continent on a map? Mellk (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Boutboul: Baltic has two meanings, apparently: the Baltic sea is the one that I'm most familiar with (it's the one to the right of Sweden), and it seems that Baltic is also the name of an ethnic or language group. So the problem seems to be which of these meanings is being ascribed to the word Baltic in the context of a shortdesc. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Boutboul: As I have explained on a few other editor's talk pages, as an Estonian, I have no negative thoughts on the term "Baltic" in a regional sense. However, my biggest issue with it as a short description is because every other European country's short description is a directional designation: Italy (is a) Country in Southern and Western Europe, Albania (is a) Country in Southeast Europe, Poland (is a) Country in Central Europe, Republic of Ireland (is a) Country in Northwestern Europe, Spain (is a) Country in Southern and Western Europe, etc. It's consistency, and I find it odd that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are singled out to be labelled differently from what appears to be the standard. Italy isn't described as country in the Mediterranean region. Serbia isn't described as a country in the Balkan region. Sweden isn't described as a country in Scandinavia, Belgium isn't described as one of the Low Countries. ExRat (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok clear that makes sense. I’ll think about it Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, well made points. I've changed my !vote as a result. DeCausa (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked carefully and made a table, it is not as obvious as you say. Several country’s descriptions have a specific geographic description as Nordic, or Scandinavian or Mediterranean… Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You do realize this is a discussion about the short description, and that is precisely what I was referring to, not the descriptions in the lead paragraphs? It is as obvious as I stated. Every European country is given a directional short description. ExRat (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was unable to find any short descr that used Nordic, Scandinavian or Mediterranean. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not certain what's being discussed in this sub-section. But if it'll help - let's remember that Estonia is the northern most Baltic country, Latvia is in the middle & Lithuania is the southern most. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Geographic dividing line

For those who're suggesting we keep the 'short description' different in one or two or all three countries. I must ask - Where's the geographic dividing line? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

In my opinon, the geographic dividing line is a mountain range of Estonian editors once again.Gigman (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks aren't helpful, here. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Invalid Rfc

In my opinion, this Rfc is fatally flawed, and should be stopped immediately as it is non-neutral. There is no way you can establish a valid consensus based on a set of options that ignores the best option available according to the content of WP:Short description itself, which is: no short description. (See the Mississippi/Norway example at WP:Short description that directly applies here.)

Due to an (imho) unfortunate choice of the name short description when the project was begun, the whole purpose of short description has confused editors since the very beginning, and has given rise to a great deal of misunderstanding and many, many short descriptions that are made in good faith, but are incorrect and often should not be there at all. The short description has one purpose only: to get users to the right article as fast as possible when presented with a short list of similarly named articles, such as you might see in response to a search query. (Also applies to other lists, like database queries.) The page title and the short description are presented to the user in tandem, and together, they enable a user to pick out the article they are looking for. What the short description is *not*, is something that enables a user to understand what an article is about, when they are looking at an article page. This should be obvious, based on the fact that when you are on an article page, the short description is not present; users never see the short description on any of the 7.1 million articles at Wikipedia—they only see it when looking at a list of page titles, and then only paired with the page title. Every item in the short list has one or two things: a page title, *plus* a short description, or just page title; if both, the two are always presented together. The short description disambiguates the page titles in the short list so the user can pick; often, just one or two words are needed, rarely more than three or four.

You can argue how much help users need in distinguishing certain kinds of things and writers of the SD info page came to the conclusion that subnational entities like Tallinn or Saaremaa or Rapla County might need disambiguation from other titles (i.e., a 'short description'), but that country names do not (so then: Mississippi: yes SD; Norway: no SD), because everybody is supposed to know that Norway is a country. This argues for no SD for Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia. If you disagree that most people would recognize these words as country names, then your first stop should be Wikipedia talk:Short description and make your argument there and get the page changed, but if any country article is so obscure that many editors would not recognize it as the name of a country in a short list of page titles, then the only reasonable short description is 'Country'. Remember that SD is *always* paired with page title so if the user saw "Estonia – Country" as one of the articles returned by their search query, that should enough for any reader to tell them whether that is the article they wanted or not. (This was already implied by what Largoplazo said.)

It is typical of the very common misunderstanding of short descriptions, that the best and most compliant choice was not even listed among a list of four options. I don't blame anyone here for this; the roots go way back. Still, it is important to understand what short description really is for, and that is disambiguating page titles in a short list of article names returned by a search query. All of the discussion above about linguistic, regional, ethnic distinctions and so on are irrelevant. The consistency argument is particularly exasperating. It is true that many European articles have them—e.g., Germany – Country in Western and Central Europe, but that is overkill. Seriously, readers don't know that Germany is a country? They can't pick it out of a list of search results, like, say, 1. Germans–People of Germany; 2. Germany; 3. German language; 4. German Empire–19th century European state; 5. German Shepherd–dog breed; 5. Flag of Germany where 2, 3, and 6 are obvious from page title alone and do not need an SD? Okay, fine; then add a short description of just one word: Germany – Country; there is no way that anything longer than that will help anybody pick it out as the right article from that list (or any list). Does this mean that all of the short descriptions for European countries are almost all excessive? Yes, absolutely. That is why the consistency argument is exasperating: your choice is basically go for consistency with current practice, which is long, unnecessary, definitional short descriptions for countries contrary to the recommendation and get the recommendation changed to follow practice, or follow the recommendation, which is no short description, or if you think readers won't have any idea that Estonia is a country, then just Country. (I favor the latter.) But none of this changes the fact that the Rfc as worded is tainted, and unfortunately there are already too many recorded !votes to modify it; the only solution is call a halt, and restart another time. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You want an option to delete short descriptions? GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not about deletion, but using the documented 'none' value in the template, or just leaving it out. The Rfc list of options should have included, • E) 'none'. Without it, no fair consensus can be obtained at this late date imhho, even if you added it now. But who knows, let's see what the closer does with it. If you do decide to start another one, please give it some time in between the two. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's what Option D is for. If you want "none"? put "D – None". GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Extremely partial, and non-neutral. To leave out the info page-recommended solution and lump it together, unnamed, with all of the other fringe also-rans as one of the 'Others', while three other wordings get their own option? That is the definition of non-neutral. I am not saying it was intentional; I'm sure you just didn't know that it should be included. But it wasn't, and we are where we are. There's nothing to do for it now, afaict, but wait. Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D is there. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

While I'm not saying your opinion is without merit in terms of what the short desxc should or shouldn't be, it's not a basis for saying the RfC is invalid. To leave out the info page-recommended solution is wildly overstated. It's a reasonable position that there should be none but it's only an opinion that is what WP:SHORTDESC points to. I see no grounds for saying none must be included explicitly as an option. As GoodDay says option D is perfectly adequate for that. I don't see it as having such an elevated status that by merely not including it the RfC is invalid. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not overstated at all. Looking at the 'none' option plus options A, B, C, and D, 'none' is the only one of the five that is explicitly mentioned at WP:Short description (eight times in the SDNONE section, fifteen times elsewhere). The Norway/Mississippi example makes it clear that:

If the country is stated in the title and well-known globally, "none" may be enough. Otherwise, the short description should, at the very least, specify the country.

So, it kind of depends on your opinion: do you think Estonia is well-known globally? If yes, then the proper SD is 'none'. If no, then the proper SD is 'Country', at least. Either way, leaving out 'none' as a possible choice is an egregious, biased omission in the Rfc question (unintentional, no doubt) which invalidates the Rfc because it deprives good-faith editors coming here to read the Rfc question and vote to the best of their ability and understanding of the right to pick an option mentioned 23 times on the page. It is not 'an opinion' that WP:SHORTDESC talks about this; it talks about it more than any other single choice. Mathglot (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not a Norway/Mississippi example. It is a Flag of Norway/Mississippi example and WP:SHORTDESC gives no direct guidance for countries themselves. The section WP:SDNONE also advises to use "none" sparingly: Rather than using "none", try where you can to construct a short description that imparts useful information. Geographical location is arguably useful for many countries. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and to say 'none' is the only one of the five that is explicitly mentioned at WP:Short description and therefore has to be included is utterly nonsensical. Why on earth would the other options be mentioned in WP:Short description}}? You've put nothing forward that D isn't a perfectly good vehicle for 'none'. I think there is no merit whatsoever in your claim that the RfC is invalid and should be halted. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree that geographical location may be useful for some countries; Vanuatu, anybody? However, it's pretty obvious that if someone doesn't know that Norway is a country in the article 'Flag of Norway', they won't know that Norway is a country in the article 'Norway', so that bird won't fly.

You're right, the page does say to use none 'sparingly'. I think that's unfortunate, but it has the force of consensus and was introduced in January 2025 in response to this discussion, which, imho was driven primarily by concerns entirely divorced from the purpose of SD and strictly on irrelevant side issues (as in this discussion). In fact, the actual purpose of SD (disambiguating search query results) was not mentioned once in the underlying draft, or in the discussion itself. So, the consensus resulting from it is weak, imho, and stems from a fundamental, but very common misunderstanding of what short description actually is. Nevertheless, weak as it may be, that's what the page says now. The more time goes on, the more the info page seems to be morphing into a confused mix of original, accurate information about what short descriptions actually do (i.e, they are displayed by the Wikimedia software in short lists of query results that users can see), and a mish-mash of vague additions to the page based on no understanding of this most basic point. The result is confused discussions like the one that led to adding sparingly (a big mistake, imho), and like this Rfc, which also began with no understanding of it, either, starting with the Rfc question itself. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There is already existing Short description accepted internationaly and politicly "Baltic states" BerzinsJanis (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. - Neptuunium (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Mathglot: I find your position completely unreasonable.

• WP:SDNONE and WP:SDPURPOSE are neither policies nor guidelines. At this point, it is merely a view. If you feel strong about it, you can express your position as option D, suggesting to put a "none".
• Absolutely all articles on European states have a short description (SD). We are trying to make things more consistent here. [It's] Extremely partial, and non-neutral. – no, it's not, precisely because of the very uniform status quo.
• Instead, you are proposing something fundamentally different. You might (just might) have a point about countries not needing the SD, but you will first have to convince the editors and reach a consensus (IMO, you will have a hard time with that). This RFC is not the right place to do it; neither your strong opinion is a reason to terminate the RFC.

-- Mindaur (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to correct one misapprehension: I am not proposing anything; I am interpreting. You say you are trying to make things more consistent here (so, you are proposing something, yes?) but why is that a good idea? The word consisten-[t|cy] appears nowhere on that page. What if it turns out that Germany and France are more well known than Estonia and other countries, should they still all be handled exactly the same? Where is the support for that, or is it all just a free-for-all of I-just-like-it votes? If that's the case, you might get one result at Estonia, and a different one at Latvia, depending on who shows up and how they feel that day. I would say that those countries in the graph should not be handled the same, and I would give for support the short desc page, guideline or not, plus whatever evidence could be mustered about global awareness about the country. If you disagree, maybe somebody should change the page, and add consistency to it. Mathglot (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

One other thing: where did all this talk about consistency even come from? It makes it seem like the actual purpose of short description has been forgotten, and SD is becoming untethered from its actual raison d'etre, and now is just this amorphous thing floating around that kinda sorta describes articles, so let's make them all consistent because consistency™ is a Good Thing. But there is a real purpose behind short description, namely, disambiguating articles in a short list of query results so you can pick the right one, and there is a real advantage in having shorter short descriptions (and some pages that have no SD) because it makes it easier for a reader searching for an article to read through a less verbose list. By making them all consistent, you make a user read through descriptions of Germany and England and France, when maybe they only really needed them for San Marino, and Andorra, and maybe Estonia. So consistency in the use of short descriptions has a concrete downside. On the flip side, what benefit accrues to a reader by having them all the same, even the ones that don't need them? It just makes the list bulkier, and harder to trudge through. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I have already stated all the problems with this RFC above, from not having enough options, to users misunderstanding the subject (primaraly thinking it's about the lead section and not the actual short description) Gigman (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Mathglot, I honestly don't understand what your complaint is. I'm leaving it to others, to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it is this: when you write an Rfc question, you must strive for neutrality. You cannot just include multiple choice options that you like, or can live with. You have to also include choices that other editors who have different views might prefer, and in particular, you have to include choices that are significantly mentioned in whatever base document you are working off, in this case, WP:Description, which specifically mentions 'none' a couple dozen times. Leaving out that choice and relegating it to an "others" category for everything else, makes it look like you're putting your finger on the scale, trying to elicit the responses you want. Even if that was not the intent (and I don't think it was), that is the effect. Because the initial set of options skipped one of the most common ones mentioned in the document, it is non-neutral, and the voting would be skewed towards those choices, making the results statistically invalid as a measure of actual user preference. I don't know how to explain it any better than that; maybe someone else can. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, that's what option "D" is for. If you don't agree with options A-C? Then choice "D" & add what you think should be in the short description or if you don't think a short description should be used at all. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's one of my favorite songs, for your enjoyment. Cheers! Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Comparison table of European country lead descriptions (English Wikipedia)

Country	First sentence (lead)
Austria	Austria, formally the Republic of Austria, is a landlocked country in Central Europe, lying in the Eastern Alps.
Belgium	Belgium, officially the Kingdom of Belgium, is a country in Northwestern Europe.
Denmark	Denmark is a Nordic country in Northern Europe.
Estonia	Estonia, officially the Republic of Estonia, is a country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe.
Finland	Finland, officially the Republic of Finland, is a Nordic country in Northern Europe.
France	France, officially the French Republic, is a country primarily located in Western Europe.
Germany	Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany, is a country in Western and Central Europe.
Greece	Greece, officially the Hellenic Republic, is a country in Southeast Europe.
Italy	Italy, officially the Italian Republic, is a country in Southern and Western Europe.
Latvia	Latvia, officially the Republic of Latvia, is a country in the Baltic region of northern Europe.
Lithuania	Lithuania, officially the Republic of Lithuania, is a country in the Baltic region of Europe.
Netherlands	The Netherlands, informally Holland, is a country in Northwestern Europe, with overseas territories in the Caribbean.
Poland	Poland, officially the Republic of Poland, is a country geographically in Central Europe, historically and culturally it belongs to Western Europe.
Spain	Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain, is a country in Southern and Western Europe with territories in North Africa.
Sweden	Sweden, formally the Kingdom of Sweden, is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
Bulgaria	Bulgaria, officially the Republic of Bulgaria, is a country in Southeast Europe.
Croatia	Croatia, officially the Republic of Croatia, is a country in Central and Southeast Europe, on the coast of the Adriatic Sea.
Cyprus	Cyprus, officially the Republic of Cyprus, is a de jure island country in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, located off the coast of the Levant in West Asia.
Czech Republic	The Czech Republic, also known as Czechia and historically known as Bohemia, is a landlocked country in Central Europe.
Hungary	Hungary is a landlocked country in Central Europe.
Ireland	Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland (Poblacht na hEireann), is a country in Northwestern Europe.
Luxembourg	Luxembourg, officially the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, is a landlocked country in Western Europe.
Malta	Malta, officially the Republic of Malta, is an island country in Southern Europe located in the Mediterranean Sea, between Sicily and North Africa.
Portugal	Portugal, officially the Portuguese Republic, is a country on the Iberian Peninsula in Southwestern Europe.
Romania	Romania is a country located at the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeast Europe.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Worth adding couple more outside the EU:

• "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in Northwestern Europe, off the coast of the continental mainland." (short description: "Country in Northwestern Europe")
• "Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe." (same SD)

Some observations:

• Nearly all cases include the cardinal direction (Western/Northern/Southern/Eastern), sometimes intercardinal Northwestern, Southwestern, etc; or Central. Lithuania seems to be the sole exception where it's only "Europe", but that was not always the case i.e. it's a product of editors messing with the description over the years.
• You take the description from the lead, rather than {{short description}} (SD). The latter should arguably be more concise. They generally are, e.g.: Denmark – "Country in Northern Europe"; Austria – "Country in Central Europe"; Croatia – "Country in Central and Southeast Europe". There are no Nordics/Eastern Alps/Adriatic Sea/etc details in the SD.
• Keep in mind that island nations can be justified exceptions, e.g. Cyprus: "Island country in West Asia and the Mediterranean Sea".

-- Mindaur (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW - the above RFC is not about article leads. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about, users tend to think it's all about the lead section.

See 1st reason of my complaints regarding your RFC above. Gigman (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Not topic related, but Poland "historically and culturally it belongs to Western Europe"?

Where exactly did you get this lead from? It's not even in the article. Gigman (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Expanded table for just short descriptions:

Country	Short description
Albania	Country in Southeast Europe
Andorra	Microstate in Southern Europe
Austria	Country in Central Europe
Belarus	Country in Eastern Europe
Belgium	Country in Northwestern Europe
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Country in Southeast Europe
Bulgaria	Country in Southeast Europe
Croatia	Country in Central and Southeast Europe
Cyprus	Island country in West Asia and the Mediterranean Sea
Czech Republic	Country in Central Europe
Denmark	Country in Northern Europe
Estonia	Country in Northern Europe
Finland	Country in Northern Europe
France	Country in Western Europe and South America
Germany	Country in Western and Central Europe
Greece	Country in Southeast Europe
Hungary	Country in Central Europe
Iceland	Island country in the Atlantic Ocean
Ireland	Country in northwestern Europe
Italy	Country in Southern and Western Europe
Kosovo	Country in Southeast Europe
Latvia	Country in Northern Europe
Liechtenstein	Microstate in Central Europe
Lithuania	Country in the Baltic region of Europe
Luxembourg	Country in Western Europe
Malta	Island country in Southern Europe
Moldova	Country in Eastern Europe
Monaco	Microstate in Western Europe
Montenegro	Country in Southeast Europe
Netherlands	Country in Northwestern Europe and Caribbean
North Macedonia	Country in Southeast Europe
Norway	Country in Northern Europe
Poland	Country in Central Europe
Portugal	Country in Southwestern Europe
Romania	Country in Europe
San Marino	Microstate in Southern Europe
Serbia	Country in Southeast and Central Europe
Slovakia	Country in Central Europe
Slovenia	Country in Central Europe
Spain	Country in Southern and Western Europe
Sweden	Country in Northern Europe
Switzerland	Country in Central Europe
Ukraine	Country in Eastern Europe
United Kingdom	Country in Northwestern Europe
Vatican City	Enclaved Holy See's independent city-state

Other than some of the island countries and the microstates, practically every country is "Country in [Direction(s)] Europe (+ wherever else)". Lithuania and Romania (which cuts the direction) are the two clear current exceptions. (Ireland is also the only one that doesn't have the direction capitalized, but I was reverted when I changed that and I don't care enough to get into a dispute over it.) LordCollaboration (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a point in this table exactly, especially since it's basically duplicated Gigman (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The above table was for leads, this is for short descriptions. I do not see the point in your response, but there we have it. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You could just change the existing one, they're taking too much space and carry little to no new information. Gigman (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your suggestion is to edit another user's comment? LordCollaboration (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt it's prohibited in this case. Should've still notified them about it, in diff at least. Gigman (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I struck through my comment. You are authorized to remove it and reorganize everything for clarity. Or I can do it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest we make these tables collapsed (so they could appear only by pressing the "show" button), since they take page space while not being particulary helpful to the discussion. I tried to do this myself but the editor expressed their opposition Special:Diff/1332376899. Gigman (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The second table is about short descriptons, so it's alright. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to remove it, only to make it collapsable so the main RFC and the discussion is more easily accessible. Actually I think it might be better to make this entire section collapsable in fact. Gigman (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The RFC closer (whoever that'll be) will be able decipher a consensus in 'bout a months time. Don't worry about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If this is a part of the RFC? It should be under a sub-section heading, rather than a new section heading. The latter makes it appears separate from the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it. Gigman (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: is this topic separate from the preceding RFC? GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I thought this was all part of the RFC discussion. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The section heading, should be a sub-section heading. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Not sure why that was reverted, it seems everyone in this section is discussing that. LordCollaboration (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the heading change back to an H2 (top level), the way it was when Boutboul started the discussion with the title, "Geographic dividing line: Comparison table of European country lead descriptions". Given that the lead of an article has nothing to do with the Rfc topic, and as the heading change took place in the middle of a flurry of changes here, and involved an apparent TPO violation, I just assumed the change was just an oversight and not intentional, and put it back to the way it was before. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought it was started by LordCollaboration. Either way, the additions of these tables (be it an entirely 'new' section' or a 'sub-section' of the RFC) aren't helping matters. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

They're helping LordCollaboration to maintain a consistent presence anywhere I go though. That's why it mattered.Gigman (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Confusion reigns

So now, it seems, an unrelated discussion comparing the lead content of country articles, started by Boutboul on this page with the title, "Geographic dividing line: Comparison table of European country lead descriptions" (currently here, under a modified name) has been swallowed up by this one, so that three days later, it now appears as a subsection of the Rfc itself (diffs: 1, 2, 3 ). It seems we can't decide what's even part of the Rfc discussion. Certainly any discussion of comparative lead content has nothing to do with the Rfc topic, and the other discussion was started, properly, as its own top-level (h2) discussion. Apparently, that's all out the window, now. This Rfc appears thoroughly confused to me, on several levels. I hope my contributions have added some food for thought, but I no longer feel that this Rfc can lead to any well-founded result, so I am going to bow out and hope that a subsequent one will benefit from the experiences in this one. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Ping, pong. Well, the independent discussion about the lead that used to follow the Rfc seems to have been moved again. Now it appears above this as an Rfc discussion subsection. Ping, pong. (Now Unsubscribed.) Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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

"Fourth Republic of Estonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fourth Republic of Estonia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 6 § Fourth Republic of Estonia until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Tallinn, Soviet Union

Moved to WT:MOSBIO § Tallinn, Soviet Union

 – Please continue discussion there. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The RFC was about the infobox, but has also been implemented on pages without an infobox, but with a birthplace indicated in the parentheses in the lead: diff. The formulation Tallinn, Soviet Union, seems like the worst possible format to choose: it is not geographically specific since Soviet Union was huge, and leaving Estonia out while mentioning Soviet Union can be offensive. According to the MOS, places of birth/death are should not be include like this in parentheses, and ultimately, the information should be moved to body and Soviet part should be expressed with appropriate nuance. However, editing many bios requires some effort, and in the meantime I suggest that the edits by User:Glebushko0703 which changed e.g. from the format ([date of birth] [City]) to ([date of birth] [City], Soviet Union) be simply reverted. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for a MoS discussoin. WP:BIO would likely be more appropriate. The talkpage 'here' is about the country, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I chose this page due to its current visibility -- which is due to an RFC you started, and which is also not strictly about the country. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I change it, as the places of birth and death shouldn't be in the lead parenthesis anyway, it should be in the infobox or body of the article. Lead should read: Name (day month year – day month year), per convention. Just one more way an editor has found for the purpose of annoying Estonian editors. ExRat (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I put "Tallinn, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" into the body of the BLP-in-queston. I think @Rsjaffe: should have a say in this. PS - Again, this isn't the place for this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

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

"Palojarv" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Palojarv has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 1 § Palojarv until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"Prehistoric Estonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Prehistoric Estonia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 8 § Prehistoric Estonia until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

"Subdivisions of Estonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Subdivisions of Estonia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 8 § Subdivisions of Estonia until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)