Talk:Baltic states

Occupation section
Earlier, I made this edit because the material was not supported by the cited source:

The material was restored w/o providing a source; I removed it again here. I also added a cn tag to indicate which material is supported by the Yad Vashem source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Timeline table
An editable historic timeline template for the article. This is the same type of a historic timeline that is used on numerous other Wikipedia pages. For example on the Nordic countries page. , why did you want to delete this? Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed with you twice back in 2018 (here and here) and nobody agreed with your proposition. You seem to have a short memory if you thought that after two years you would insert it and nobody would notice it. And I will repeat it once again – WP:OSE does not justify the addition of the timeline table. It causes more problems than solves them. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two separate topics mixed in the links you posted. So I'll focus on the timeline table only. First of all, "nobody agreed" is false. There are several editors who agreed there, for example . The discussion just died and no action was taken. It's completely justified to bring this topic up again. The latest discussion was about what exactly the timeline table should look like. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As the second note - What problems do you think a history timeline causes? They're used everywhere in wikipedia. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated table: One of the comments from @Minnekon was that "Ancient Estonia" wasn't really a political body like the rest of the blocks here, so instead, can remove that and just keep one century row as the "tribes": Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I also liked 's idea of using this table format instead, because it would be more exact. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Embedding the proposed table format here as an example. LV & LT timelines need to be added then. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: The proposed timeline template by seems to be used quite extensively. Example. Example 2. When searching for "History timeline templates on wikipedia", this pops up in many places. See Category:History timeline templates for the full list. cc  Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: Also this one looks efficient, because all different regions can be listed on the left-side vertical column. So we won't mention LT/LV/EE at all, only the names of the regions throughout the timeline. This allows for all regions to be listed with precision. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like you still WP:DONTGETIT. In addition, as I already stated many times – WP:OSE is not a justification to include a timeline just because it exists on other pages. So just stop it. Timeline is a bad idea because:
 * a) it does not improve the page in any way (apart from taking unnecessary space);
 * b) the term "Baltic states" did not exist until the 20th century so your desire to insert a timeline, which dates back to the 10th–12th centuries is beyond me.
 * Navboxes like Template:South America government from 1990 are supposed to be placed at the bottom of the page so that is a very silly idea. You should read WP:NAVBOX before making such suggestions, because it would go straight to WP:AFD. Therefore, reconsider your intentions regarding the timeline, forget the navbox proposition, and just WP:DROPTHESTICK, because otherwise you will once again show that you are WP:NOTHERE. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe a visual timeline summary does improve the page. As previously mentioned by other editors, a (very) short summary of pre-1918 history of the three would be ok. So it's up to a wider vote. First step is to actually build the timeline though, using the timeline template shown above with the Estonian history example, so that's what I'll do next. I don't see how WP:DROPTHESTICK applies, because the previous "debate" didn't end. As I said, several editors were in favor of adding a timeline. I'm continuing it where it left off. WP:NOTHERE is unjustified. What exactly is un-encyclopaedic about a timeline? Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Navboxes like Template:South America government from 1990 are supposed to be placed at the bottom of the page so that is a very silly idea." - Just out of curiosity, why exactly is that a silly idea? If we assume that using it in the bottom is exactly how that specific navbox style is supposed to be used. Your WP:AFD reference is unclear, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Obviously no-one would ever delete this article. When some edit isn't suitable, it'll be reversed. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant about navboxes is that it cannot be used in one page. Simple as that. Single page navboxes are not allowed and they are deleted very quickly. WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to "If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away." and "If you don't, if you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it, if you continually refer to old news, if you parade your triumph in the faces of others ... you're not really winning friends and influencing people. Instead, you are annoying everyone nearby." Do you get it now? Because that is exactly what you are doing. And WP:NOTHERE applies to you not really wanting to work collaboratively and just trying to push your own agenda. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, you're being quite hostile. These types of personal attacks like "you must have an agenda" have no basis. What "agenda" is solved by adding a timeline? It seems to be specifically you with a problem against the idea of a timeline, but you're framing it as somehow I'm the one going against the mainstream opinion. To summarize your response about the topic itself, if I get it correctly, is that the timeline is bad because only post-1918 should be covered? Let's just leave it at that then for now and see what other editors say. My view is that I agree that the article itself should be primarily about post-1918, but a general short summary of pre-1918 for the region in general is justified. A timeline would fit that summary role quite fine. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not hostile. Secondly, saying that "you must have an agenda" is not a personal attack, but a simple observation knowing your past behavior in this page. In addition, the term "Baltic states" is about a grouping of sovereign states that did not exist before 1918 so that is one of the main reasons of why the timeline is a very bad idea (and this is not some kid's coloring book to have it). Wikipedia is supposed to have more text and less tables/images/etc and not the other way around. The current short summary is already good and it even has links to the histories of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which is enough. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "saying that "you must have an agenda" is not a personal attack, but a simple observation knowing your past behavior in this page" - This is Ad hominem. Unrelated to the current topic. There's much I would respond to that but I won't. Let's stick to the actual topic. Blomsterhagens (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Europa Tower Vilnius in October 2017.png

Unofficial?
Why this insistence on describing "Baltic states" as an unofficial term? The term is neither official nor unofficial; it is just a descriptive term! Similar terms like "the Balkans", "the Nordic countries", "Scandinavia", "Western/Eastern/Southern/Northern Europe", "Middle East", "Far East" are all just as "unofficial", sometimes well-defined and sometimes not. The term "Baltic states" is used by i.e. the Baltic Assembly here, by the Lithuanian government here, the Latvian precidency here and the Estonian parliament here. Unofficial? Rubbish!

It is true that before WWII the term also often included Finland (and sometimes even East Prussia), but the current formula in the lede indicates that the term itself is post-WWII, which is false. I suggest making the lede simply stating how the term is used currently, is a geopolitical term, currently typically being used to group three countries:, and then expanding the text in the 'Etymology' section somewhat to explain the shift in meaning of the term. T*U (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)