Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (miscellaneous) (section)

===Survey (Baltic bios)===
{{Not a vote}}
*<s>'''A'''</s> '''E''' Both the Lithuanian SSR and the Soviet Union are defunct, so it makes sense to link to them. I don't think that runs afoul of GEOLINK, which is more focused on extant places. If you didn't know what the Lithuanian SSR was, you would have to copy and paste that into the search because even if you went to Panevėžys, that doesn't have a link to the Lithuaniun SSR or the USSR.  [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 20:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
*:{{ping|CaptainEek}} I've added additional options. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
*::Amended. E seems to solve the problem. F or G would be fine too, but that's just bikeshedding at that point. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 01:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''Missing options''' that seemed to be getting support in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A question]]:
** "[[Tallinn]], then part of [[Estonian SSR]], Soviet Union"
** "[[Tallinn]], then administered as part of [[Estonian SSR]], Soviet Union"
** "[[Tallinn]], then governed by [[Estonian SSR]], Soviet Union"
:[[WP:RFCBEFORE]] advises trying to resolve a question like this in a regular discussion before calling an RFC. As that discussion was proceeding well, this RFC feels a bit premature, especially since the RFC question seems to disregard it rather than using the outcome to refine. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Beland}} - I've added the additional options, you've mentioned. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''A'''. Simple, informative, concice. Clarifications on status can be done in page text, not the infobox. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''E''' per [[MOS:GEOLINK]], which gives very clear guidance to {{tq|avoid [linking] [consecutive comma-separated sequences of two or more territorial units]}}, and instead suggests {{tq|to space the links out when feasible}}. I see no compelling reason to deviate from the suggestion given at [[MOS:GEOLINK]], which is further supported by [[MOS:OVERLINK]] which states that {{tq|Links may be excessive even if they are informative. For example, because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination. Balance readability, information, and accessibility when adding multiple links in one section of text.}} [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 23:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''E''' or '''G''', the other options are either too long (F), violate [[MOS:GEOLINK]] (A, C, D), or are insufficiently informative (B, which lacks the useful link to the SSR). [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 02:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''F''' or '''G''' but I prefer F. [[User:Anatole-berthe|Anatole-berthe]] ([[User talk:Anatole-berthe|talk]]) 08:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''E, F or G'''. All satisfy [[MOS:GEOLINK]] by adding a qualifying phrase between extant and non-extant names. "part of" might be seen as less neutral than the other two, but [[WP:NPOV]] concerns would probably be better addressed by a footnote. [[User:Indrek|Indrek]] ([[User talk:Indrek|talk]]) 09:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''E''' {{sbb}} E sufficiently establishes, place name, geographic location and succinctly establishes 'regime at the time', which is pertinent info in most cases. F & G, apart from being over-long, imply that that the place was administered from somewhere else ''(as a colony)'' or somehow 'irregularly' ruled. That kind of detail isn't necessary in an infobox and could be confusing.'''C''' or '''D''' would be acceptable, but lack the clarity of '''E.''' [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 11:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''A, B, C, or D'''. The other options diverge from one of the most consistent standards we have across en.wiki, consistent enough that readers probably expect it. They are also longer and thus more likely to mess with infoboxes. Give readers credit that they both understand the comma convention that we use everywhere from text to article titles, and that they understand the linear passage of time. "Dallas, administered as part of Texas, United States" is not something that brings the reader additional clarity. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''E''': seems to comply with [[WP:GEOLINK]], is clear and helpful, and allows the user to access the historical area as well as the current place. The two links are all that we need. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 13:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''A, C, or E.''' My feelings are generally that, when a place of birth/death in a person's infobox incorporates a no-longer-extant subnational entity, it's useful to the reader to link that entity so that (if they want it) they have access to further context about the location at that time. For that reason, I think the options that link [[Lithuanian SSR]] (or its equivalents) are preferable to those that do not. I'm willing to bend the guidance at [[MOS:GEOLINK]] for the sake of this point; I read that guideline as mainly focusing on linking in article prose, and I believe that infobox text serves different needs and so does not need to necessarily follow it strictly. However, I'm also open to E as an option that meets the letter of GEOLINK while losing the least amount of concision. I oppose F and G as essentially just more cumbersome ways of achieving the same compromise as E. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 17:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''E''' seems to me most appropriate to me. While nothing was actually decided in that RFC, there were people in the original discussion who supported the Soviet Union birthplace (including me) that had no problem with a clarifying footnote. This is a good solution, and less cumbersome than F or G, without ceding our preference to the <em>de facto</em> country rather than the <em>de jure</em> one. For the same reason, I don't think the Texas example above is comparable since I don't think the contextualization is as crucial to a typical reader here. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
*:Just to make this more complex for the poor closer, while my preference is E, I'd accept anything A-D over F or G. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 10:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''A, B, C, D''' - The first four options are highly common across other bios on Wikipedia [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''B''' (minus typo) or '''E/G''' per GEOLINK. Oppose A and C. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 05:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''A''' - simple, factual, and informative. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 16:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''E''' simple and informative[[User:Mwinog2777|Mwinog2777]] ([[User talk:Mwinog2777|talk]]) 22:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
*'''E''' seems like a good compromise, I'd prefer '''A''' but can see that will conflict with MOS. I'm less a fan of '''F''' and '''G''', rather keep it simple and explain in the related articles. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

* '''A > C > (E=F=G) >>> D>B''' We link to things we don’t expect our reader to understand. It would be stupid for GEOLINK to override that. I am neutral on the wordier options, as I do not understand the distinction between them. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;[[User:HTGS|<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">HTGS</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 06:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''F''' but all of these are inaccurate as they do not explain the fact that Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union de facto, but de iure were still considered to continue to exist as sorveign entities due to illegality of Soviet actions. Tallinn, Soviet occupied Estonia or Tallinn, de iure Estonia, de facto Estonian SSR, Soviet Union would be factually correct and short enough for infobox --~~[[User:Xil|<b style="color: #FFBA13">''Xil''</b>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> 15:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
::Some discussions I read suggest that some people truly do not understand what the issue is, so assuming good faith, I'll expand on this a bit. Since the first half of 20th century, for reasons hopefully obvious to anyone knowing the slightest bit of history, international law has been discouraging territorial expansion by force. As such an internationally recognised sorveign country being forced to become a part of another country is considered illegal. This includes any acts that attempt to create legal rights and justify land aquisition like establishing puppet states, administrative units etc. From legal perspective such acts are considered null and void, they do not create any rights and are treated as if they do not exist at all. Nobody, of course, is denying that the physical reality is what it is, but it is refered to in terms that only acknowledge the situation on ground, such as that there is [[military occupation]], in this case the [[occupation of the Baltic states]]. The non-recognition of Soviet Union annexing the Baltic States is the objective historical reality, not some nationalist fringe view, Wikipedia has multiple, well sourced articles covering the topic , such as [[State continuity of the Baltic states#List of recognition and non-recognition of annexation|State continuity of the Baltic states]], which shows that dozens of countries supported this interpretation of the international law during the Cold War. On basis of this being the international law, the Baltic States restored independence during the collapse of Soviet Union and as such it is now part of constitutional laws in these countries. '''As such options A to E solely listing Soviet Union and its internationally unrecognised Soviet republics are very problematic, and options F and G are only moderately better as they imply that something is up, but don't really explain to the reader that the mainstream view is that de iure the location in question belonged to another sorveign country'''. Furthermore the Baltic States now have regained contol over their territories, plus it potentialy appears in an article on a living person, who also doesn't think Soviet Union had any right to the land they were born on, there have been multiple cases outside of Wikipedia when such language has been chalanged  [https://www.lrt.lt/en/news_in_english/29/114720/no_more_born_in_soviet_union_record_in_belgian_documents_for_baltic_citizens] [https://eng.lsm.lv/article/politics/diplomacy/attention-sil-vous-plait.a249329/] [https://news.err.ee/120273/ambassadors-to-german-paper-baltic-states-not-former-soviet-republics] [https://www.ft.com/content/d4bd577f-1c8d-4553-882c-a869583b4e18]. Therefore presenting information like this is misleading and can potentially cause problems to people, who whish to actually use Wikipedia as a source ofinformation and copy facts from here. Not to mention that the current debate has gained enough traction to get coverage in the mainstream media in Baltic States, which regard the current state of Wikipedia articles as disinformation and question if this is not a manipulation by Russian propogandists.[https://eng.lsm.lv/article/culture/history/30.01.2026-wikipedia-policy-edges-baltic-history-into-russiasphere.a632339][https://news.err.ee/1609903256/estonian-volunteers-struggling-to-protect-wikipedia-from-russian-propaganda] [https://www.lrytas.lt/it/ismanyk/2026/01/09/news/rusijos-propaganda-siauteja-vikipedijoje-nukentejo-ir-lietuva-40903545]. Ignoring it likely will just keep on provoking further controversies. It is far from [[WP:NPOV]] to complitely disregard, what entire countries consider the objective historical reality, on basis of having held a strawpoll, the result of which actually did leave otions for further discussion, such as on adding footnotes etc. In addition, Russia currently is using extrely simmilar tactics to what Soviet Union did in Baltics to justify its attempt to gain lands in Ukraine, which is met with very simmilar international reactions, in that case it appears that there is no problem with listing balanced information in the infoboxes, such as  [[Crimea|stating it is internationally recognised as Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia]], [[Mikhail Tolstykh|adding footnotes]], [[Kerch Polytechnic College massacre|using de iure/de facto]]. '''There are  plenty of ways to come up with neutral wording that is short enough e.g. [[Panevėžys]], de facto [[Lithuanian SSR]], Soviet Union, de iure [[Lithuania]] or  [[Panevėžys]], [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[Lithuanian SSR|occupied Lithuania]]''' ~~[[User:Xil|<b style="color: #FFBA13">''Xil''</b>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> 16:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Unfortunetly such option as you are offering is almost never an option to choose from in RFC. And wast majority of editors, wants to stick with maps show, that what we will use. Additionally im amaised of one user who wants to unify all infoboxes, have no idea how he will manage find single solution, to all worlds problems, Balcans, Isreal/Palestine, China/Taiwan, Baltics, Ukraine/Russia and others... [[User:BerzinsJanis|BerzinsJanis]] ([[User talk:BerzinsJanis|talk]]) 16:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Personally I do not see a problem with there potentially being a broader policy on contested territories, although not all cases are simmilar to this one, Ukraine is, historically some cases of occupation by Axis powers might be, but issues in Balkans, Isreal/Palestine, China/Taiwan, as far as I know, are not. --~~[[User:Xil|<b style="color: #FFBA13">''Xil''</b>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> 18:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)  
*All of these options are highly biased. The only correct option is "Panevėžys, Lithuania" as this was the legal state under international law. If you insist to mention the de facto rule at the time, then the only correct option is "Panevėžys, Lithuania (Soviet occupation)". [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-52185-6|&#126;2026-52185-6]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-52185-6|talk]]) 15:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
*:This first option is not being added as [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#RFC:_Baltic_states_birth_infoboxes|the consensus in the previous RfC]] was to include "[[Lithuanian SSR]], [[Soviet Union]]" in the place name. The current RfC is about establishing the specifics of how it should be implemented (with regards to linking and wording), and does not intend to rehash the previous RfC. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''A''', '''C''', '''E''', '''F''', '''G''' - Lithuanian SSR needs to be linked. - [[User:Neptuunium|Neptuunium]] ([[User talk:Neptuunium|talk]]) 09:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''A''' followed by '''C''', assuming Soviet Union is seen as common word that shouldn't be linked. IMO it rhymes with "cases" like [[Gandhi]] and [[Miriam Adelson]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''C/A''' - Linking to the administrative subdivision but not the administrative superdivision seems fine style wise, but have both linked isn't a problem either. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 17:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
* '''C''' for compliance with GEOLINK. I don't think the "then administered/governed as part of" needs to be added since it is too verbose for an infobox, which are supposed to be succinct. [[User:Aydoh8|Aydo]][[User talk:Aydoh8|h8]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aydoh8|[what&nbsp;have&nbsp;I&nbsp;done&nbsp;now?]]]</sup> 05:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:Hmm, but C is actually not in compliance with GEOLINK, which states that normally only the first element should be linked? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*::Be sure to read the last part of [[MOS:GEOLINK]], which says:
*:::If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is not, it is preferable to space the links out when feasible, e.g. {{tq|[[Kumrovec]], then part of [[Austria-Hungary]]}} (<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline>[[Kumrovec]], then part of [[Austria-Hungary]]</syntaxhighlight>).
*::-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 08:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:::Yeah, that's what options E to F are for. They are clearly GEOLINK-compatible. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:I don't believe that an extra 3 words is "too verbose" for an infobox. They don't have to be the shortest possible way to phrase something. I'm replying to you as a reply to anyone that has made this argument, not that I've singled you out specifically. [[User:Bluefist|<span style="color:#6600cc;">Bluefist</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bluefist|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray;"> talk</span>]]</sup> 23:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There should be no consideration for the E, F and G options. The infobox person documentation is pretty clear on the three-way formula for listing geos. The previous proferring and edit warring for these has only been driven by off-wiki campaigning by nationalists. Another example: De-facto is how we go, a person born in the [[Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan]] is listed as such without consideration for the legitimacy of the government in the 1990s or now. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 08:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:I kinda doubt that? Certainly a simple [[Afghanistan]] is sufficient to such cases; no need to make things more complicated than they have to be. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:Also, the form E is explicitly suggested by GEOLINK for such cases (where the second-level unit no longer exists), while A, C, D are arguably explicitly forbidden (or at least strongly discouraged) by GEOLINK. That has nothing whatsoever to do with nationalist feelings. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*::[[Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)]] is what I was primarily talking about. Listing entities should not be a question of complication but a question of fact. The entire reason simply listing Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia was explicitly and overwhelmingly rejected at [[Infoboxes#RFC:_Baltic_states_birth_infoboxes]]. 
*::This RfC would then appear to be mostly semantics. As for GEOLINK and its 'preference', that is one without any major precedent for all the bios and BLPs I have trawled since I first opened Wikipedia haven't come across any major ones following it. It is safe to say we can ignore that preference.
*::As for nationalist driven canvassing concerns, the only reason I mention it was after coming across the massive off-wiki media and social media campaign in the Baltics attempting to alter how we do things at enwiki (reported at the Signpost). The edit wars, disruptions, discussions et. al. and subsequent RfCs to tackle that, all stem from that very coordinated effort and editors should be very wary of that. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 08:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:::Sure, I'm in agreement with the outcome of the earlier RfC. This one is about settling the details. However, E to G are fully in agreement with the outcome of the earlier RfC and are valid options, should one of them manage to gain (relative) consensus. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*::::"Administered" is often used in lieu of "occupied" on enwiki which was of course rejectes. So no I would not say that these are in consonance with the earlier RfC. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 14:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:::Characterizing any outcome as "overwhelming" misrepresents a discussion where significant concerns about WP:NPOV were raised regarding the unique international legal status of the Baltic states - whose Soviet annexation was never recognized de jure by most Western nations, a fact extensively documented in the article [[State continuity of the Baltic states]]. 
*:::The RFC result remains disputed, and editors who disagree with its application have legitimate grounds for doing so based on policy concerns that were not adequately addressed in the original discussion. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 19:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*::::If you think the earlier RfC was improperly closed, you'll have to [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE|challange the closure]]. Otherwise there's nothing more to be done about it and we can really focus on the new one. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*:::::Noting that the closure has already been challenged [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Invalid_close_of_Baltic_states_birth_infoboxes_RFC|once]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Baltic_states-related_articles#Consensus_still_needed?|twice]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive377#Baltic state (1939 - 1990) place of birth issue|thrice]], unsuccessfully. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
*::::::I did not know that, thanks for the heads up. To be noted that the editor above has been edit warring exactly over this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrius_Kubilius&action=history].
*::::::I will also inform editors of the failed RfC chsllenges at [[Talk:Kaja Kallas]] where a very related discussion is ongoing. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 05:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::I kind of expected as much, though thrice is indeed more than I expected! All right then, so we can well and truly consider the old RfC as settled for good and move on with the discussion. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::The number of times a closure has been challenged doesn't address whether the underlying concerns have merit. 
*:::::::The challenges occurred precisely because the RFC failed to adequately engage with the distinct legal status of the Baltic states under international law - a substantive issue that remains unresolved regardless of procedural outcomes. "Settled" and "correct" are not the same thing. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 17:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::Would you be satisfied with a footnote noting that the occupation was considered illegal by many countries, as proposed on the other RFC? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 19:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::A footnote would be an improvement over the current format, but I have concerns that it still places the legitimizing framing ("Estonian SSR, Soviet Union") in the most prominent position while burying the critical legal context where most readers won't see it. The purpose of an infobox is to convey key facts at a glance - if the illegality of the occupation is important context, it shouldn't be hidden in a footnote. I'd prefer the infobox text itself to reflect the reality, such as "Tallinn, Soviet-occupied Estonia," with a footnote providing further detail. But I recognize this is a discussion and I'm open to hearing other perspectives. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 19:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::::That ship has sailed since the three-part format (with SSR as middle part) was already established by the preceding RfC. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''A, C, or E.''' per ModernDayTrilobite. Lithuanian SSR should be linked to provide context for those who seek it. Soviet Union is well-known enough that a link can be omitted to reduce consecutive linkage. Options F and G are too cumbersome and we'd probably need another RFC to decide on which (ad)verb exactly we should use (because it's foreseeable that someone will ask for the (ad)verb to be "occupied", like Xil already did above). We can avoid the whole (likely  heated) debate about the question which (ad)verb describes the situation most accurate/neutral by simply not including an (ad)verb to begin with. [[User:Nakonana|Nakonana]] ([[User talk:Nakonana|talk]]) 17:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''F''' though none of the options listed adequately address the underlying [[WP:NPOV]] concern. All options A through E present "City, SSR, Soviet Union" as the primary framing, which implies a legitimacy that was explicitly rejected under international law for over 50 years. The Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was never recognized de jure by the United States, United Kingdom, and most Western democracies — a position maintained continuously from the [[Welles Declaration]] (1940) until independence was restored in 1991. Baltic diplomatic missions operated in Washington, London, and other capitals throughout the entire Soviet period. This is extensively documented at [[State continuity of the Baltic states]]. F at least gestures toward the complexity of the situation, but the most accurate and neutral formulation would acknowledge the occupation context directly — for example, "Tallinn, Soviet-occupied Estonia" - which reflects both de facto Soviet control and the de jure continuity recognized by the international community. An explanatory footnote (as in the separate Kaja Kallas RFC) would be a further improvement regardless of which display option is chosen, as it provides readers with the context needed to understand why this situation differs fundamentally from other Soviet republics such as the Ukrainian SSR or Belarusian SSR, whose incorporation into the USSR was internationally recognized. I also note that this RFC's scope is limited to linking style within an already-contested format. The broader question of whether "City, SSR, Soviet Union" is itself appropriate for the Baltic states — given their unique legal status — remains unresolved and warrants a dedicated RFC that explicitly addresses this distinction. [[User:Seungsahn|Seungsahn]] ([[User talk:Seungsahn|talk]]) 20:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
*:The question asked in your last sentence was already answered by the previous RFC. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 23:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''A''' or '''C''' or '''E'''. Lithuanian SSR should be linked; if that is linked, I don't think linking Soviet Union hurts or helps much. And if we are going to separate the blue links, it should be as short as possible. [[User:LordCollaboration|LordCollaboration]] ([[User talk:LordCollaboration|talk]]) 20:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
* '''B''':

1: Per [[WP:GEOLINK]], the examples show only the ''first'' item of each list being linked. I propose the same be done here.

2: Also, we want to avoid [[MOS:OVERLINK]]. The more words are linked, the less likely each linked item is to be viewed. As such, links should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. I believe that only linking the first item here would be the best.

3: [[WP:INFOBOX]] states {{tq|The purpose of an infobox is [[Wikipedia:Summary style|to summarize]], but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.}} I believe this is farther evidence that links should be used sparingly in the infobox, especially when it comes to location lists.

4: We should avoid unnecessary controversy when possible, and just listing the location avoids extra debates over phrases such as "then part", which are included in some of the other options.

Because '''B''' only links the first item here, I think we should apply this one. 

[[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 07:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:One of the examples, the one for a former country, contains two links. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 09:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::My point is not that it's required to be this way, but that it should be preferable. [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 18:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''B''' or '''E''', given [[MOS:GEOLINK]]. [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 11:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''E''' I believe is an acceptable compromise. I've been reading the past discussions about this subject and as an uninterested (well, not really uninterested, just someone who doesn't have a vested interest in either decision) editor it seems that every RFC discussion has been closed with a very shaky consensus. This sometimes happens when non-wikipedia edtitors are interested in a subject and it is continually reopened and discussed. I believe that there are some users who are very invested and perhaps some that have broken rules. However, to me that indicates that there is a real issue that really needs to be solved with a grumble rather than one side "getting their way". I have also seen seasoned editors, I think even an admin, acting very strong armed and rude. I think they had lost their assumption of good faith from rule breakers and frustration. '''E''' is a good compromise because it addresses both of the sides' problems. It is accurate, in that the Baltics were commonly understood to be subunits of the Soviet Union, and it is thoughtful of modern opinions and historical precedent in those countries about the rejection of those states as units of the Soviet Union. I also believe it has precedent in Wikipedial, though I cannot find any specific examples which may weaken this point. I speak of "X from Y formerly known as Z". I vageuly remember this for countries such as Rhodesia or British India persons. [[User:Bluefist|<span style="color:#6600cc;">Bluefist</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bluefist|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray;"> talk</span>]]</sup> 23:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''E''' Probably works best here in terms of [[WP:GEOLINK]]. --[[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 17:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)