Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6

Adjacent countries with no bilateral relations article
A while ago I compiled a list of all country adjacencies and used that to figure out which pairs didn't have a bilateral relations article. That can be viewed here. I also looked at which articles existed, but were redirects. That can be viewed here.

My thinking was that, generally, sharing a border brings about a lot of interaction and therefore warrants an article. And indeed this project page says that as well (4. They share a border.).

Anyway, I just realized I never posted anywhere about this. So here you go. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our notability criteria disagrees with your belief of what "warrants an article". Wikipedia has too many poorly-sourced non-notable stub articles already. If you can't take the article to "featured" status then you shouldn't write it, because you're just robbing someone else of a four award. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. This Wikiproject's notability criteria says exactly what I just said. Here it says "All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should roughly have met any of these criteria in order to meet notability for the bilateral relational articles." and "4. They share a border." I'm confused what you are trying to get at here, care to elaborate? I imagine you are simply sharing your opinion as opposed to WikiProject International relations' guidelines, but it certainly doesn't come off that way. Brightgalrs  (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see those words as equivalent to a subject-specific notability guideline. I don't think there's consensus for that criteria, either. I'd be fine starting a poll of members to see if those criteria are reasonable or perhaps an RfC. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, there was no consensus for their addition many years ago. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's cool we all have opinions. I literally just posted a resource a la WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Really there is nothing to disagree with. Brightgalrs  (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 03:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with - I have a more general point. There is an effort to purge bilateral relation articles, that I don't think is keeping with the intent of Wikipedia (my personal view) and have started a topic below. Supcmd (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Bilateral article deletion
I am feeling a little disappointed with efforts to delete bilateral relations articles, and wanted to (perhaps again?) suggest we try and avoid this purge unless absolutely necessary. Apparently hundreds have been deleted. What I like about them is that it brings the world closer together. Is it a bad thing if one day every country had a bilateral relation article with every other country? Ok I agree that if it is a one paragraph statement that really says nothing more than "there is not much going on" - that it could be deleted. In many cases, no one has bothered to add info into the article, and in many cases we should ask that people help fill it in. I did just that in Albania–Australia relations but am frustrated with the response Articles for deletion/Albania–Australia relations. In the future the size of something like Wikipedia will not be an issue as computers become more powerful like Quantum computing, and hopefully searches will be a lot easier. We should not go backward in content, I feel. It just feels wrong that we are deleting bona-fide interesting information that can really help build International relations.Supcmd (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC) You won't find that info without considerable research of many sources. Another important point is that the alternative - to repeat the info twice in "Foreign relations of ..." is cumbersome and makes those articles long and difficult to digest. So just one of example of what is getting purged - just saying - if this is not good enough to keep, where will it end? ... if you all agree we need to bring the "purge" under control. Also if I have it wrong, happy to be corrected. Supcmd (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an example, things you did not know about Australia-Albania relations that will soon be deleted.
 * 6 Australian airmen died in air battles over Albania and their graves are among the 45 in a major allied war cemetery in Albania
 * An escaped convict from Albania made a new life in Australia, but was discovered and extradited. He denied he was the convict, and the case was taken to the Federal Court in Australia by the Federal Govt of Albania - it made almost all major news outlets in Australia at least.
 * Australia helped evacuate 4000 people from Albania
 * Albanian Consulates-General in Australia
 * Albanians interred in the WWII in Australia
 * Ministerial visits
 * Treaties, Visas
 * Significant migration
 * bilat trade info (sure it is small ... but isn't that useful info)
 * you will find the information above had deliberate exaggerations that I have repeatedly asked Supcmd to correct:

LibStar (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there are no consulates general of Albania only honorary consulates which have much weaker powers.
 * there is only one treaty not treaties
 * simply having visa or trade information does not add to notability. Especially since trade is worth 0.0007% of Australia's total trade.  And a lot of Australian companies trade more than that in a day.
 * There is clear community consensus that bilateral articles are not inherently notable. This has already been established through the AfD process. You have basically repeated your AfD case here . Is this some attempt to garner support? A number of arguments you use for keep clearly are arguments to avoid including WP:LOSE, WP:NOHARM, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:EXISTENCE, WP:EVERYTHING, WP:ITSINTERESTING, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. seven arguments to avoid. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And with that ... I close my case :) . Supcmd (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * could you please explain how visa information adds to notability? You either need or don't need to have a visa . By consensus visa information has been removed from all bilaterals but you somehow think it adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is we should stop the blind purge that is happening. I don't know if this group knows about the pressure that is being put on good articles to be deleted. Nor do I want to argue. I took this up as an example, not to debate whether this should stay or go, but the whole purge. Quite honestly, the article as a whole is notable and any reasonable person can see that, part of the article covered news that made almost all local news outlets (the extradition case). Some can argue on other parts, sure, and reduce it down to something like what happened to Ford Prefect when his lengthy entry in The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy; on Earth was summarised to: "Mostly Harmless" and yes that is not noteworthy :). No one knew that Australians died and were buried in the war Albania outside this article (some say it is too small). You can argue 2 treaties are 1 (sure, but they are separate legally separate instruments covering different content on the same subject). No visas for Australians is a reason that that there are only two Consulates-General (yes they are |full Consulates-General according to Australian law and the Vienna Convention ). If you want to delete it fine, and you have proudly said you have deleted 100s of these relationship articles- and wear it as a badge of honour. Little bits of information create a story.  I am a lowly editor, and this is not my full time job. I just think that this "WikiProject International relations" is one of the most worthwhile projects on the planet, and I mean it. "XXX-YYY foreign relations"  are an important part of that project (officially or not). The vast majority have been created with good intentions. Some of them may be a waste of space, but I think we are doing the wrong thing by deleting them in troves, and are missing out on some gems. Supcmd (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the key point is that they are Honorary . They are unpaid positions and do not have full consul powers. If the relations were actually important both countries would post an actual resident ambassador or actual consul general. Trying to spin honorary consuls as showing a noticeable relationship is clutching at straws. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * said you have deleted 100s of these relationship articles- and wear it as a badge of honour  incorrect again. The community decided to delete. You need to understand WP:CONSENSUS. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Notable state visits?
What qualifies a visit by a head of state/government as notable and worth mentioning in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siuenti (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.

You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Group of Two as part of Cold War II
The "Group of Two", the proposed special relationship between US and China, was recently added into Cold War II. It is discussed at Talk:Cold War II. --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have listed the discussion as an RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of primary sources for articles about international organizations
Hi – I'd like to ask members of this WikiProject for their help in building a more informative WP article about the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) that relies to a limited extent on primary sources, like WP articles about most other international organizations.

First let me declare my COI in connection with the IACA page – I’m the Senior Coordinator for Advocacy and Communications at IACA and previously made direct edits to this page in my own name. I stopped doing this owing to my COI and have instead proposed several secondary sources on the article talk page in the hope of contributing to a more informative and balanced article.

I've previously raised the issue of primary source usage on the IACA article talk page and also on the WP Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As a result I understand that WP guidelines do allow the use of primary sources in certain situations. In fact the WP pages of many other international organizations that operate in similar areas to IACA - such as UNODC and Interpol - rely very heavily on primary sources.

As you can see, the article about IACA is currently incomplete and I think would benefit from the addition of basic factual encyclopaedic content about (e.g.) the organization's governance structure, sources of financing, and constituency, supported by limited references to IACA's founding agreement and website.

Is anyone interested in helping to improve the article? Happy to discuss and provide further sources/content.

Thanks and best wishes, Richard.eames (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A link to the relevant section: Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war

Treaty contra Convention
I have Svalbard Treaty wich clearly have the word Treaty in the title. For the International Convention on Load Lines the word Convention is used. en:WP have a redirection from convention to treaty. Can anyone explain the difference. Breg Pmt (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing help needed
More eyes needed for article improvement on Useful idiots where the current Russian interference in the US elections issues seem to have spilled over. SPECIFICO talk  19:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_International_relations

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 16:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Position of Israel
I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project. Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  03:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia–United States relations#Media reception
Was wondering if some more editors would take a look at the newly added Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Such a section might actually have value the article, but this version seems a bit WP:UNDUE and maybe even WP:PROMOTIONAL by emphasizing a single book/author, neither of which seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization and naming conventions
Per the project page, the suggested name for the French consulate general in Atlanta would be "French consulate general, Atlanta". But the article is at French Consulate General, Atlanta (note "Consulate General" is in upper case), and the one in New York is at Consulate general of France in New York. Shouldn't the articles for the consulates general in Atlanta and New York use consistent naming? And let's lose the unnecessary capitalization: "embassy", "consulate", "consulate general" and the like are common nouns. The project page should also be changed to reflect this ("British embassy, Berlin"). Chris the speller  yack  17:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice
Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notification
There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification
There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Embassy chapels
Hi everyone, I created a new page, Embassy chapel, that displays an interesting and underrated feature of International relations: Embassy chapels. For example, before Catholicism was legal, English Catholics were able to worship at the Embassy chapels of foreign governments, like the French, Portuguese, or Sardinian embassy. Four London churches today have roots in those embassies (Church of St Anselm and St Cecilia, St Etheldreda's Church, Church of our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, St James's, Spanish Place. The page also talks about other embassy chapels around the world, which provided religious havens to persecuted religions thanks to diplomatic immunity. I've linked a lot of resources but I don't have much time to fill in the page. Any and all help is welcome. Eccekevin (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Expatriates
The tree of expatriates mostly consists of diplomats (e.g. ambassadors) and sportspeople (footballers in particular) neither of whom are expatriates in the common-language meaning of the word expatriate (see also article Expatriate). Wouldn't it become time to abolish this category tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Most of these articles are for people who have essentially temporary postings. Not defining.  Permanent expats should be in the migrant/diaspora categories.Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Including China's position
Please join the discussion and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's stance in the article Hamas. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a BUMP to get more input. Stop by and add your point of view. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Attn. Editors - Assessment Request - Viva América
Hello Wikipedia Editors - Whenever an editor has a few extra moments, perhaps the article Viva América can be assessed. It has been upgraded with additional references, with links to cultural diplomacy, Nelson Rockefeller, Good Neighbor Policy, Voice of America and an infobox. Many Thanks in advance. With best regard104.207.219.150 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)PJ
 * ✅ I rated it C. The line for me to pass B-class is that the newspaper sources are missing article names and bylines, which is an issue for verifiability. If the sources were fixed, I could agree to B-class. Neither B-class nor good article class requires that the article be comprehensive in its coverage. GA does require that no major aspects are missing. You could consider nominating this for GA once you track down those newspaper articles although that article is shorter than most GAs by a considerable amount. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ambassadors of Malaysia to East Timor
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ambassadors of Malaysia to East Timor. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Lists of diplomatic missions - honorary consulates
Since attending the recent ESEAP Conference 2018, I have taken it upon myself to improve en.wikipedia's coverage of East Timor. As part of that task, I updated List of diplomatic missions of East Timor. Another editor then deleted the honorary consulates I had added to that list, without also amending the intro to state that honorary consulates were not included. I have looked at the "Lists of diplomatic missions" section of this project page, and it says nothing about whether honorary consulates should be listed or not listed in such lists. I have also done an archive search of this talk page. The search revealed not much more than that:


 * more than a decade ago, an editor commented that "some countries annoint hundreds of honorary consulates (some no more than a plaque on somebody's front door) and don't bother keeping up to date information (and if they do, it would be a nightmare maintaining the articles)";


 * in similar vein, another editor commented in 2011 that such consulates should be excluded because "some countries have hundreds of these sinecures all over the world".

It is certainly true that some countries have hundreds of honorary consulates. Germany, for example, has well over 300 of them. But most countries have far fewer than that. For example:


 * my own country, Australia (a G20 country, ie one of the world's 20 biggest economies), has a significant number of honorary consulates, but nowhere near even half of 100 of them, let alone hundreds, and they're all listed on the DFAT website along with all of Australia's other diplomatic missions;


 * East Timor has a very small number of them, and, similarly, they're all listed on the the Embassies, Missions and Consulates page of the East Timor government website.

Presumably the reason why en.wikipedia editors have gone to the trouble of creating all of these lists is that readers of en.wikipedia would find them useful. I suspect that most readers of such lists are likely to be people looking for a diplomatic mission. As the services that would be provided to such people by an honorary consul would be likely to be very similar, if not the same, as the ones that would be provided by a career consul, it does not seem sensible to exclude honorary consulates merely because some (ie a very few) countries have hundreds of them. Rather, it seems to me that the more sensible course would be a country-by-country one, eg:


 * the Germany list could exclude them, but should also have a link to the German foreign ministry's list of all diplomatic missions;


 * the Australia list should include them (why include in the list the Australian consulate in, eg, Sao Paulo, but not also the one in, eg, Rio de Janeiro, merely because the latter is headed by an honorary consul??);


 * the East Timor list should include them (East Timor is a small impoverished country with few diplomatic missions, and most of its relatively few honorary consulates are in places (eg Berlin, Dublin) where a wealthier, more populous nation would have an embassy and/or career consul).

Bahnfrend (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Country comparison sections
An anonymous user, has gone on a spree adding large "Country comparison" tables to articles about bilateral relations. In my opinion, those are redundant, visually distracting and certainly not helpful to readers. I don't think such layout is endorsed by the wikiproject, but bringing the matter here for a broader input. No such user (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should cease. The IP user doesn't engage in discussion and merely reverts anybody trying to remove their cruft.  Sandstein   22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

PR photos as lead images
I have started a discussion about the recent addition of such PR photos (history link: ) at Talk:Germany–United States relations, due to concerns about the encyclopedic value of such staged photos - especially as lead images out of context - and in regards to WP:RECENTISM. Additional feedback on the article's talkpage about this image usage, and more broadly about similar other additions in other articles about country relations (see good-faith edits of ), would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Great power article: Map
Following quite nasty edit-war, I started discussion on the Great Power article talk page about map in the article. Main topics for discussion: What countries should be on the map? Should the map show some sort of hierarchy of great powers (eg. using colours)? Would not be better to remove the map altogether? So far, only IPs and new accounts entered this discussion, so ipnut from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead image in Germany–United States relations‎
I have started a formal RfC at Talk:Germany–United States relations. Any additional input would be welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for discussion
Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Foreign relations of Ireland. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion has had input from few editors. Broader input would be welcome at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 6. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice: Discussion about the short descriptions for bilateral relations pages
You may be interested in participating in the discussion at WT:WikiProject Short descriptions. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC has been open for some time at Albania-Greece relations. Input from this project's participants is welcomed to help achieve a consensus. Khirurg (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Migrant worker/Foreign worker
Discussion is invited about a proposal to merge 'Foreign worker' into 'Migrant worker'. Thanks - Meticulo (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetic order in articles on bilateral relations
I've found that in May 2009 a change was made in the guidelines on the bilateral relation article names. Before this change the number of syllables in the name of a country was the primary criterion and the alphabetic order a secondary one. Afterwards, alphabetic order remained as the only criterion. Can anybody steer me in the direction of a discussion where this decision was made? --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cold War II
I started the discussion at Talk:Cold War II. Your input there would be appreciated. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder
was recently fully protected because of POV pushing an edit warring. The fight continues in the form of edit requests on the talk page. I am completely ignorant about anything having to do with the military of Pakistan and India other than hoping that they don't nuke each other, so I would really appreciate it if someone else would look at the page and evaluate the edit requests. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilateral relations of Spain
Hi, I just came here to tell, to all interested users in this project that there is a complete table in the Spanish Wikipedia, and is the table of the european country of 🇪🇸 Spain. All the articles of bilateral relations between countries and other entities are created there, and it is probably a good reference for star to translate to english in here. The articles have a good edition, with several sources and great maps of every country. So, it is a chance to have another country completed in english. I put here the link to the spanish table of Spain. Thankyou.--Fobos92 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Cold War for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC related to Venezuelan politics
FYI. RfC available for comment:
 * Talk:Fabiana_Rosales

This is related to Venezuelan politics and international relations. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Assessment
Hi friends! Could anybody assess my approved article for creation Foreign policy of the administration of Shinzō Abe? --LLcentury (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Chemonics
Hello, I'm looking for editors interested in international development to consider my request to update the Chemonics Wikipedia article. My first suggestion is to improve the infobox. My request is posted at Talk:Chemonics. The infobox I've shared uses the "Start date and age" template, provides a more specific location, adds mention of the founder and CFO, links "president" and "CEO", includes areas served, and removes the unsubstantiated employee count.

I am a member of Chemonics' strategic communications team. I've created an account to suggest edits and I've disclosed my financial conflict of interest on my profile. If editors have any questions about my requests, I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Implemented. LW at Chemonics (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I posted a new request at Talk:Chemonics, asking Wikipedia editors to consider overdue updates to the Chemonics article. The updated article draft I created is available for editors to review: User:LW at Chemonics/Chemonics.


 * If editors have any questions about my requests, I'm happy to discuss! LW at Chemonics (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Egypt–Tunisia relations
This article needs work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC).

WikiProject Technical standards
A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful. You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Popular pages
Greetings, For the Project page I added a section for Popular pages which is bot-updated monthly. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest
A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Do international relations articles need an infobox?
I'm wondering whether it might make sense to create an infobox for "Foreign relations of [country]" articles. This could include a map of countries colored by relationship status, a list of important figures (for the US, it could be something like "Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo (R) / House Foreign Affairs Committee chair - Eliot Engel (D) / Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman - Jim Risch (R)", perhaps with some other important individuals added), and perhaps other data points.

Thoughts on this? --Yair rand (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember we need to cover historical information in our articles, so Foo-Bar relations' might cover hundreds of years. I like the map idea, and maybe we could list the location of the embassies, and the current ambassador name and the latest trade balance.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC).


 * yes I think infoboxes have been very helpful. Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was talking about "Foreign relations of Foo" rather than "Foo-Bar relations"-type articles. --Yair rand (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Country comparison sections
Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6, an IP removed such sections from a number of articles, in each case referring to the aforementioned archived conversation in the edit summary. Despite that explanation, another editor reverted all of these changes, and the IP was soon blocked. See WP:ANI and User talk:93.182.179.223. Members of this project may wish to consider whether their views on such sections have changed since the archived conversation. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Fyi, I just made a comment at, describing why I think the large "country comparison" table there should be split into a stand-alone list article. The reasoning would also apply to other article that have such a table, like Germany – United Kingdom relations and others. I also found this previous discussion here, with further arguments against them: . I'm not sure if there's been a lot of discussion in any of the other articles or not. --IamNotU (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Simplification of Wikidata properties
Hi, not sure whether this is the right place for my proposal; if not, please point me to the right place. Around the world we have many diplomatic relationships and hence thousands of people filling a position of 'Ambassador'. Currently there must be thousands of Qualifiers like 'Ambassador of xyz to abc'. All these thousands of qualifiers can in my view be rationalised if we add just two new ones: 'Sending country' and 'Host Country', so that an entry for 'Position ' would look like: Position:
 * Ambassador
 * Sending country: Germany
 * Host Country:   Nigeria
 * Start Date:     2005
 * End Date:       2008

This would even make it obsolete to mention qualifieres like 'replaces' and 'replaced by', because these can then be automatically determined (if Wikidata entries are complete). The above approach would also be helpful to create automated lists like 'List of Ambassadors of Germany to Nigeria' for the above example and automatically fill the box with positions held in Wikipedia articles.--Wikipeter-HH (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Template discussion
There is a discussion about Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War which may interest participants at this Wikiproject. Please give your opinion at Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move notice
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Exclusive economic zone of Portugal, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Lists of ambassadors, governors general, governors, high commissioners etc.
The majority of these are at the title with the correct capitalisation. Some, however capitalise the position, contrary to WP style. I will probably fix these over the next week or so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC).

Discussion at WT:UKWNB
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:UKWNB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment in this WikiProject
If you are interested, there is a request for comment about an article in this WikiProject. Talk:Tripartite Pact. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Village pump (proposals)"
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals), which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

UAE agreement move discussion
See Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Embassy of Equatorial Guinea in Washington, D.C.
I would appreciate other opinions about the image used for this article. Thank you.  APK  whisper in my ear  23:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Leveraging Wikidata to create and maintain lists
Hi, I am spending quite some time updating lists of (german) ambassadors and their biographies. That alone is quite some effort and I have now come across the list of ambassadors of the European Union (in the German WP), where updating is even more cumbersome. I am wondering if we could save us a lot of effort, if we used Wikidata to create such lists. In order to make that efficient, we would however need to introduce a change in Wikidata. Currently there are thousands of object like 'x ambassador to Y' or 'Ambassador of x to Y' etc. (even that is not consistent). What we need is an object of type 'Position held' called 'Ambassador' with Qualifiers 'Sending country/organisation', 'Host country/organisation', 'Start date', 'End Date' etc. With that, we are able to replace thousands of manually maintained lists of ambassadors by automated lists once we get the data in Wikidata correct (which is a once of effort for past ambassadorial assignments). Future updates will then only be made once in Wikidata, instead of multiple times in the different lists in the various languages.

Unfortunately I am not deep enough into Wikidata myself in order to get this going. I hope someone here would know how to address this. --Wikipeter-HH (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC) NB: if you want to contact me, please use my German talk page

Request for revision on WP:OR and biased lists
The "List of active separatist movements" articles have a lot of original research and fringe claims being taken too seriously. The ones for North America and Europe are particularly egregious as far as I can see.

List of active separatist movements in North America

List of active separatist movements in Europe

If possible, take a look at these and remove unsourced claims if you see them. I started this on the North America article and may continue later. Thanks for taking a look Rauisuchian (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review
I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:China–United States trade war
Input is requested in an RfC at Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 5. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mir, ISS and Gateway task force
I will be working on a task force under WikiProject Spaceflight that will focus on Mir, ISS and Gateway space stations and their missions. However, it will be a joint task force between this WikiProject and WikiProject Spaceflight. Are their any willing members to be collaborative about this task force? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please add your name at WikiProject Spaceflight/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force/Members if you are interested to collaborate on articles about international projects like Mir, ISS and Gateway. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Russia–Turkey proxy conflict
I welcome your input at this location: Talk:Russia–Turkey proxy conflict --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Infobox on Nagorno-Karabakh War
A Request for Comments is in progress on identifying the belligerents and non-state actors in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#RFC_on_Infobox_(Listing_of_Parties) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict § Balkans and Caucasus
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict § Balkans and Caucasus. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

List of bilateral relations between member states of the United Nations
Hello. I had the idea of creating a matrix to present links to all articles about bilateral relations between member states of the United Nations. I think this would be useful to some readers in browsing Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, and useful for some editors in navigating across pages and emphasising which articles are lacking. I'm aware there are navboxes that sort of do this, but I can only seem to find examples from the perspective of a single country (e.g.: Template:Foreign relations of China). However, since I don't typically edit on this side of Wikipedia, I'm afraid this idea has already been implemented and I just don't know it, or perhaps there's some other reason why I shouldn't go ahead. I created a sample (click here) to demonstrate what I'm thinking. Please let me know what you think. Ypna (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * One wikipedia page and two templates that come to mind are Member states of the United Nations and the templates: Template:United Nations and Template:United Nations' relations with its Member States. Thanks for checking in! Shushugah (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. It seems that none of those really overlap with what I am thinking; Member states of the United Nations and Template:United Nations don't list links to the relationships between members, and Template:United Nations' relations with its Member States is about relationships between the UN itself and member sates. Ypna (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah misunderstood. For 200 member states, that would be (199*198/2) or 19,701 unique articles, which would be excessive for a list. That said, you can search these categories if needed Category:Bilateral relations by country Shushugah (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've come to realise a table with ~20,000 cells is unreadable. That category system looks good though. Thanks. Ypna (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually did this a few years ago, see here (933,129 bytes, be careful). It's a neat visualization, but otherwise pretty useless. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 10:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Kommersant has an RFC
Kommersant has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles on Embassies
What is our standard practice about the notability of articles about embassies? Relations between two countries are normally considered notable. That means that, with approximately 200 countries in the world, we may have up to approximately 20,000 articles on bilateral relations, which seems reasonable in the English Wikipedia with six million articles, and probably a lot less than 20,000 actual articles. My question however is whether the embassies are considered notable. On thinking about the question, it occurs to me that an embassy is notable if, among other things, it is considered a notable historic building. What are the other criteria for whether articles should be accepted on embassies? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An example is Draft:Ukrainian Embassy, Chișinău. Should I accept it?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Other reasons might be if the countries border each other. Maybe if there are notable conflicts (or cooperation) between the countries. New countries should get articles as bilateral agreements are likely to be written. Countries with good size populations of immigrants might be considered. Famous ambassadors in those embassies? The Ukrainian embassies are listed in WP's official monthly contest so that should make them notable.


 * During my research for another article, one embassy was used as a safe haven for a woman fleeing the sex trade so I can see a WP article being read by someone escaping human trafficking. --Akrasia25 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In some cases there is extensive reliably sourced information about the embassy itself. Embassy of the United States, Moscow is an example. On the other hand the draft you linked doesn't have much information about the embassy itself – most of the information could be covered in Moldova–Ukraine relations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The quality of the article is separate, from the question of WP:GNG. Any embassy in my humble opinion is WP:GNG and it's likely/possible it can be interlinked to another language, so having even a stub is useful placeholder for improving content. Shushugah (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Quite relevant, I created nearly 100 templates for all affiliated Embassies of one nation. Currently over 100 templates can be found in this category Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country templates. I was initially skeptical if every country should have one, but seeing how vastly different the naming schemes are (and tracking categories are not user friendly), and the abundance of intra-language links, which Categories cannot do easily, convinced me nearly all countries should have such a template. Shushugah (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Help needed intra language Wikipedias
I created Template:Diplomatic missions in Djibouti which was bare bone yesterday, but now has links to Japanese, Arabic and French Wikipedia, thanks to anon IP editors.

Here are following bare bone templates for missions that could benefit from some more eyes:


 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Burundi
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Cambodia
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Cameroon
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Cyprus
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in the Central African Republic
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Chad
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in the Republic of the Congo
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in East Timor
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Grenada
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Guinea
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Guinea-Bissau
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Ivory Coast
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Mozambique
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in Niger

Shushugah (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How to call ambassadors to the Republic of China in Taiwan?
You may be interested to join the ongoing discussion at. Place Clichy (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding de facto countries
I currently have a draft waiting for review on the relations between Abkhazia and the United States. This isn't about having someone from this project to speed up the review process. Right now, it's not of much urgency. But if it were to be accepted, on the foreign relations template for the United States, would a separate section have to be created in the bilateral section under the listing of former states? Or would it go under Asia Western where Georgia is listed under a double bullet point next to Georgia as the majority of countries view Abkhazia as part of Georgia? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I went for it and added it next to Georgia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding limited-recognition countries
I have another question about the same drafts as were mentioned above. When are relations between the United States (or other great powers) and countries not recognized by the United States considered notable? When should I accept one of these drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, I think it's notable since it's the United States, and that alone as long as it's sourced can be notable. The U.S. is a global power. I think you can look at it like Israel which is considered to have limited recognition but articles with countries it doesn't have formal ties with do exist. I have a similar question regarding the de facto states on Foreign relations of the United States. Also, if you check out my Abkhazia–United States relations draft, it should be noted that in 2014 there was an article with the same name was deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WikiCleanerMan - You are the author of the draft, and I was and am asking for other opinions also; but it does help to have your viewpoint.
 * I did notice that Abkhazia-US was cut down to a redirect after a deletion discussion. On the other hand, Somaliland-US was cut down to a redirect unilaterally, AND the editor who redirected it has been banned for disruptive nationalist editing.  So I accepted the Somaliland draft to revert an improper redirection.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think both of our questions intersected, hence my reply. But since it's the U.S. it does have notability. Thanks a lot for your help with the articles I started. You've been a big help. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

United States and South Ossetia
An article on relations between the United States and South Ossetia was deleted in January 2014, with the lack of such relations cited by two of the editors. We now have another draft about relations that explains the lack of relations. The draft should, in my opinion, only be accepted if the situation has changed, or if the original decision was mistaken. So I am not accepting the draft at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Newer discussion at Talk:Second Cold War
Newer discussion: Talk:Second Cold War --George Ho (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about merger of Global South
Members of this Project may be interested in this merger discussion about Global South. EMsmile (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Foo–India relations
Several articles such as Pakistan–India relations have been moved recently. Please can a subject specialist check that they are all at their correct titles? Republic of Congo–India relations probably needs to be moved, but I'm unsure whether to ressurect Republic of the Congo–India relations or India–Republic of the Congo relations. Changes to the leads may also require review. Previous discussions: User talk:Utkarsh555; WP:AWB/TA. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 GAR
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CMD (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeking help editing an article
Hi everyone,

I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :)

S2102sa (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks fantastic, nice one! I made a minor change, but aside from that it's close to perfection (could expand the second phase section, but I'd understand if there's little literature about it ). You've pushed it way past stub level and you should definitely be proud to have that as one of your first big changes on Wikipedia ^-^ //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 03:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yes, definitely agree with you! I am in the process of updating the second phase section. It is fairly recent so I don't have as much literature for it, but I will put in what I have. Thank you so much, that is so kind of you! I have just a quick question - how should I go about getting it reassessed as it still says stub/start class for a few of the projects it's linked to? Thanks again :) ! S2102sa (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't have to get a peer review to change the rating up to C or B (you only have to get a peer review if you're shooting for A, Good Article, or Featured Article). So, if I were you, I would change the ratings myself to C when I feel the article has been updated past the stub/start level - reassessing the article yourself. You can do that by editing the WikiProject templates on the talk page. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 05:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinjiang papers
Hi all, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would love some feedback on an article I'm working on: Xinjiang papers. The article isn't currently in Wikiproject International relations, but I think it's still relevant to IR. I'm not too experienced at Wikipedia editing, so I would greatly appreciate any advice or feedback! Thanks. Couchcupcross (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Image discussion at Talk:Second Cold War
I started the following discussion: Talk:Second Cold War --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cyprus–Northern Cyprus relations has been nominated for merging to
Category:Cyprus–Northern Cyprus relations has been nominated for merging to. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of state has been nominated for merging to
Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of state has been nominated for merging to. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government has been nominated for merging to
Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government has been nominated for merging to. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bilateral relations SD's
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Bilateral relations SD's. — Goszei (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentences
Hi, everyone. Can we please get rid of lead sentences that serve no purpose other than forcibly accommodating bolded article titles? I am referring to cases such as this one, which appears to be widespread. Defining Argentina-United States relations as relations between Argentina and the United States is, forgive my bluntness, ridiculous; such lead sentences impart literally no information. Interestingly, WP:REDUNDANCY specifically refers to this:

I have been removing some but I am overwhelmed by the number of articles and would not like all that to be undone for the lack of discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. WP:BOLDITIS and MOS:BOLDTITLE also speak to this problem. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've no objections to the changes being made. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I support this change. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fully support! Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, with thanks for your efforts. Meticulo (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * seeing as quite a few people have chipped in to express their support, perhaps you'd like to offload some of the work by making a quick list of articles you've come across with this problem, so other editors can help? Jr8825  •  Talk  10:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was wondering if anyone would volunteer :D I suspect these sentences can be found in hundreds of articles in Category:Bilateral relations by country. They were in virtually every article from Category:Bilateral relations of the United States, which contains 209 articles. Usually the only thing that needs be done is delete the first sentence, which is fairly quick and easy, but repeating it hundreds of times gets tiresome. Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Question: what should be done with articles like this one which give translations of the term "X–Y relations" in the lead? Should the translations be moved to the infobox? Removed altogether? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am removing those too. Those translations exist because of the presumption that "X-Y relations" is the proper name for the subject, but of course it is merely a descriptive term. Surtsicna (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing articles for UN treaties
Hi all

After doing some research for some UN related articles I've discovered some treaties which do not have Wikipedia articles, if anyone would like to create them please do, I'm going to try and find some reliable sources for them to help get them started.


 * 1) Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98487293
 * 2) Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12120337
 * 3) Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98488248
 * 4) Trademark Law Treaty https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11418793
 * 5) Washington Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489149
 * 6) Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12120337
 * 7) Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489466
 * 8) Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489480
 * 9) Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489785

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:CIA activities in Iraq
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CIA activities in Iraq that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Institutional liberalism
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Institutional liberalism that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rationalism (international relations)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rationalism (international relations) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of x templates - city or country for embassies?
Recently I have noticed that older "Diplomatic missions of [country]" templates usually use the city name (often bolded) for embassies (see Diplomatic missions of Indonesia and Diplomatic missions of the United States). However, there are also some (mostly newer ones; it helps that Shushugah automatically created templates that use this format) that list the country for embassies (and then put consulates in sub-bullets, like in "Diplomatic missions in [x]" templates), like Diplomatic missions of Luxembourg. I realized there might not be a prior discussion on this. Which format should be adopted? (Personally, while I appreciate Shushuga's work, I think the former looks better.) MSG17 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to consistency for the sake of it. It was inconsistent before I started, so I stuck with country level names for all of them, for three reasons.


 * 1. The location sometimes changes, but the article name doesn't, for example the US Embassy to Israel changed from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (in that case there two articles), or the name of the capital like Nur-Sultan is new name of Kazakhstan.
 * 2. When there are embassies and consulates together such as the case with missions located inside India, it's hard to group together New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai together, but on other hand, India (Chennai, Mumbai) is grouped more visually and consistently. Or in this case, I'd need to know that Gdansk, Krakow and Warsaw all belong to Poland, which I wouldn't know from this Template:Diplomatic missions of Austria
 * 3. Most people don't know what country a city even belongs to, especially when it's an irregular city/location for the diplomatic mission. I am curious what other people's thoughts are. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All good points. I also now remember that a few embassies have moved between Lagos (the largest city) and Abuja (the capital) in Nigeria, which also creates a discrepancy. Plus, I guess using too much bold like that also presents it own aesthetic and design issues. Anyway, I also would like to hear from others on this matter and hopefully form a consensus. MSG17 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with identification problem (people mostly dont know which city to search for to find Embassy/High Commission). Embassy location within country changes however country remains same. Just looking at Indian High Commission in 'Georgetown name, it is difficult to figure out host country. Flags were there however looks like MSG17  removed it. Purpose was to make it easier to identify cities with the help of country flag. Each and every country has only one Embassy - it makes sense to create "Embassy name, Country" instead of "Embassy Name, City". At-least flag can be added next to name in the template for easy navigation and identification.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, country names are definitely more recognizable than city names. Admittedly it is slightly awkward in cases where the country has changed – for instance our article on the Embassy of the United States, Moscow covers the embassy's history in both the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. But as a general rule I think it makes sense to use the country. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a link to the same embassy can be included in the "former missions" section with the name "Soviet Union", while the listing for the current one can use "Russia" - easily solving that problem. As for the previous message, there are several cities named Georgetown in the Caribbean, which is another good point to bring up - that cities can have the same name and it would be awkward to differentiate them. So, I think that getting rid of the bolding and standardizing the format used by Shushugah's generated templates and the "Diplomatic missions in [x]" templates would be the best option for consistency. I think the flags just make everything cluttered, and the list page already has them anyway, so that can be consulted if needed. However, I feel that not bolding the entries would make it less cluttered, so I also would appreciate hearing other people's thoughts on this matter as well. I will also say that "Embassy of [sending country], [receiving city]" has been set as a standard at some point, and I've seen mixed used of "Embassy of [country] to [country], in [country], in [city]...", so I think the current form should just be maintained (although the same city name thing will introduce complications), but that is going a bit off topic. MSG17 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is your last comment regarding the name of an article? I am fine with the technical precision since an article itself has more information anyways inside it, and category tags to aid in searchability which a template cannot. The examples of Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem and Embassy of the United States, Tel_Aviv (which redirects). There is a thorny issue that is not easily solved, with diplomatic missions to the Holy See, which are nearly universally located in Rome physically, albeit separate missions from Italy. I have major difficulty merging Wikidata items/wikipedia articles of missions located in Rome for either Vatican or Italy. Only the Embassy of Italy to the Holy See is guaranteed to avoid that problem 😅. Either way, if there is a proposal to rename/standardize article names, I'd make that a concrete separate proposal. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was addressing AbhiSuryawanshi's comment about the same. MSG17 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will proceed to start working on in the Country name with nested consulates convention listed in Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country templates. If someone else wants to tag team with me and start from the bottom/Z up? Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I volunteer to help. While I do wish we could get more comments, this project honestly seems to have very little activity, so I think this is the best we can get. I don't know how much I'll be able to do, but I'll get the big US one out of the way.MSG17 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

List of old style templates
Pending consensus of the discussion, the templates with old style city/bold/italic naming are
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Indonesia
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Thailand
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of South Korea
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Italy
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Turkey
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Japan
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of the United States
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in the United States -- I part like it, but if I want to Find all the locations of French diplomatic missions I have to search in multiple locations. On other hand, it neatly shows all the diplomatic missions per location.

Wikidata refinement
On Wikidata, the corresponding templates of/in should be marked as opposites of each other. E.g. Template:Diplomatic missions of Afghanistan to Template:Diplomatic missions in Afghanistan, which on Wikidata item has property 'opposite of' that matches to the other wikidata item. Note this must be done for both wikidata items. It's a mess, but doing this once, will make it way more structured for any of the 300 language wikipedias.

Possible styling/markup issues
The new style are the rest of the templates in Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country templates. As a side comment, I like the custom styling some of the templates have, but some have extemporaneous info. I would suggest an extra pair of eyes on the following Regards ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Hong Kong and Template:Diplomatic missions in Hong Kong
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of the Holy See and Template:Diplomatic missions to the Holy See
 * Template:Diplomatic missions of Turkey and Template:Diplomatic missions in Turkey (lot of red!)
 * Template:Diplomatic missions in the United States -- I part like it, but if I want to Find all the locations of French diplomatic missions I have to search in multiple locations. On other hand, it neatly shows all the diplomatic missions per location.
 * The last one is my "fault", haha. I thought it would save space and would also integrate links to the "Diplomatic missions in [city]" articles. In retrospect, though, just doing what other templates do with consulates would have actually saved more space and it wouldn't be too unwieldy. MSG17 (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC discussion at Talk:Second Cold War (September 2021)
I started an RfC discussion: Talk:Second Cold War --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated William Henry Harrison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion
We have a discussion at Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_agreement with regard to whether Zangezur corridor should be merged into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Your opinions are welcome. Thank you. Grand master  08:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"US border battle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US border battle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Migration diplomacy with regard to whether Refugees as weapons should be merged into Migration diplomacy. Your opinions are welcome. Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Embassy articles on Wikipedia.
Hi,

Recently series of Embassy of India articles are marked for deletion. Nothing is inherently notable (or not notable) on Wikipedia. Everything comes down to references and citations. Reason provided for deletion says 'Embassies are not inherently notable'


 * As per SNG
 * Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:


 * 1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * 2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.


 * Let us discuss these two criteria in details -
 * The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * Diplomatic mission of India or any other Embassy articles - By default topic is international in scale.


 * The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
 * Embassy related updates are covered by local media as well as host country media from time to time. WP:SUSTAINED applies here.

Here are few articles which are nominated for deletion -
 * Embassy of India, Tallinn
 * Embassy of India, Sofia
 * Embassy of India, Bogotá
 * Embassy of India, Baku

I would like to hear from others about having or not having Embassy pages on Wikipedia. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the articles you've linked, I don't really see why any of those pages should exist. It seems like all of them, if they contain any new information at all, would be better served as a section of their respective India-{Country} Relations page. I do think embassy pages can be notable (such as Embassy of the United States, London), but I don't see any of those Indian embassies being notable. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 08:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All film/city/series wiki pages are in same structure, embassy pages will have similar structure and information. List of Ambassadors, History of the diplomatic mission and other minor aspects like cultural centers/scholarships differ from embassy to embassy. List of Ambassador pages can be part of main embassy article. Articles can be developed in detail like Embassy of the United States, London over a period of time. There are embassies which dont have any online presence or any media mention - I do understand that those pages can not be created because they wont have references/citations however I think articles with WP:SNG and references should exist as stub at-least and can develop over a period of time. As long as basic SNG criteria is fulfilled, stub article can exist. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As the nominator of these articles, the main reason for deletion is a lack of indepth third party coverage thus failing WP:GNGTEST. Most of these embassy articles are based on primary sources. Embassies are not inherently notable so do not get a free pass to be automatically notable as many keep !voters seem to think. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the buildings are not notable, and the information should be written up on relations pages. That way the information is there, and accessible, just not on individual embassy pages. Geschichte (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we all want something similar, which is an encyclopedia that is authoritative and written with secondary/independent sources. As much as these AfD discussions annoy me, I know people nominate them in good faith and because they want WP:GNG to be upheld. What procedurally frustrates me is WP:BEFORE searches are seldom made. The naming, language of countries, missions are often times ambiguous, which makes the presence of a starting stub more relevant, not less imho. The de facto policy is that embassies are not inherently notable, but I'd propose a proper request for comment, or perhaps a creation of a guideline in Category:WikiProject notability advice that discusses exactly what such criteria can be. In one direction, ALL embassies are notable, that would have a ceiling ~5,000 embassies according to Lowy Institute. There might be a middle ground here as well. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it makes sense to come up with guideline/policy on embassy articles. After discussion on this talk page, RfC can be initiated.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Embassy X in Country Y if lacks coverage to pass WP:GNG, then the relevant information should be covered in country_X-Country_Y-relations article. Such non notable embassies should be merged and redirected to X-Y relations article. See the precedent at Articles for deletion/Embassy of Nicaragua, Lima In future if there is enough content then a WP:CFORK to embassy article can be created. Venkat TL (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For Indian embassies, Merge it with eitherBotswana–India relations or to "List of diplomatic missions of India" if the XY relations article does not exist. This seems to be the consensus across several AfDs. See Articles for deletion/High Commission of India, Gaborone Venkat TL (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, thank you for reviving this discussion. Fundamentally, I agree that there is a problem because the AfDs about embassies keep popping up and there are likely hundreds that are waiting to appear in the AfDs. Most have been found not to be notable, and most do not pass WP:GNG. Looking at the panorama of relations between two countries, we have four types of articles that talk about bilateral relations: general ones (i.e. Foreign relations of India), bilateral ones (India-New Zealand relations), a list of diplomatic representations including embassies (List of diplomatic missions of India), and standalone embassies articles (Embassy of India, Kyiv). In my opinion, we should strive to redirect all embassy articles into lists of diplomatic missions or bilateral relations articles, with the exception of embassies which are found to be notable. To me, an embassy is notable if the building has architectural value, or if it was the place of a historic event. The Embassy of the United States, Tehran is perhaps the most extreme example of an article which should be kept due to the Iran hostage crisis. I support an RfC to form a consensus on the criteria which make embassies notable, and whether it should be preferred to redirect embassy articles to lists of diplomatic representations or bilateral representations. This would save a lot of time in AfDs and other deletion fora. Pilaz (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon Featured article review
I have nominated Rhodesian mission in Lisbon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zurich Protocols
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zurich Protocols that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Formatting bilateral relations templates
Hi all, I've created an essay called Formatting bilateral relations templates which I argue there should be a certain style of formatting when editing or creating bilateral relations templates for two countries. Feel free to make improvements to the essay. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A good initiative. Thank you! Hope to be able to contribute soon. I don't know if anybody in WP:BILATERAL is still active, but bilateral articles get nominated a lot at AfD, so there are many people with opinions there. I'll see if I can reach out to a couple to see if they're interested to contribute. Pilaz (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Pilaz, I also created another essay on Formatting bilateral relations articles which like templates I argue that there should be a style of formating these articles. Although, it's not about the content of the article, just presentation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * hi there! Sorry for the delay in response, and excellent work. I'm in the process of adding comments to both in the respective article Talk page, and I'll be sure to ping you. Pilaz (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Greek–Turkish relations
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greek–Turkish relations that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) has an RFC
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilateral maps
Does anyone know what type of maps are used for bilateral relations articles and how they are created? I've been trying to figure it out for a while and haven't been able to. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Never done one, but I've always thought it was Inkscape. At least that's what I used to edit Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Pilaz (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Ukrainian crisis"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ukrainian crisis, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Overlapping possible WikiProject: Peace
The gradual weakening of European arms control processes over the past decade and a half, and the general topic of peace processes and institutions around the world, have a mix of some good articles in Wikipedia, and quite a few missing ones, and quite a few that need significant improvement. The topic overlaps with international relations, but is distinct. Feel free to have a look at User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace and add your name and start editing :) if you think the project is viable and you're likely to contribute. Boud (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick question on Foreign relations of Ukraine article
Hey everyone, just stopping in to get some feedback on something I noticed. I'll cut to the chase :) Ukraine is a member of a few multi-lateral agreements, pacts, alliances, whatever you'd like to call them. However none of them are mentioned on Foreign relations of Ukraine. That being said I'd like to add them but my question is where? Under an existing section or create a new one? The existing "multi-lateral" section is for formal organizations, not small regional pacts. Also I found it odd that none were mentioned down in the "Relations by Country" section either so I'd like to include them somewhere on the article. Thanks everyone, —  dain  omite   04:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lublin Triangle 🇺🇦 🇱🇹 🇵🇱
 * Association Trio 🇺🇦 🇲🇩
 * British–Polish–Ukrainian trilateral pact 🇺🇦 🇵🇱
 * Good question, . I checked the foreign relations pages of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic to see if they listed the Visegrad Group in the list, but it turns out they don't (outside of the lede). Since these are multilateral agreements without an international organization with a secretariat, I am hesitant to call them multilateral (in trade and economics, trade accords between regional groups are called "plurilateral" agreements, but this distinction of the word hasn't translated outside of trade). So my suggestion would be to feature a heading called "regional groupings", "regional political alliances", "regional pacts", "regional blocs", "regional cooperation", or simply "Regional" (etc.) before the Africa section. Hope this helps. Pilaz (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, thanks for the clarification and suggestion . I'll work on updating that on the relevant pages in due time. —  dain  omite   22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_-_Should_NATO_be_displayed_in_the_infobox_as_a_support_belligerent_providing_indirect_military_aid%3F

Maxorazon (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Micronations on international relations articles
An editor is attempting to include micronations (specifically the Principality of Sealand) in International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Input appreciated here. Frickeg (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject International relations overhaul
Below are some proposals for your consideration. Feel free to add your own. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging editors of the WikiProject active in the last 365 days (75/181):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

Proposal 1
Editors of the WikiProject International relations who have not edited for at least 365 days should be separated from the list of active members and moved to a list of inactive members. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. We currently have way more inactive members than active members, and we just don't know how big the WikiProject is at this stage. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Membership lists are a bad idea, as they are always falling out of date. It makes more sense for interested editors to be found in Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Active editors of the WikiProject are invited to add their area(s) of interest in parenthesis after their username. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. It's currently hard to know who's interested in what within the project. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above, such lists are a web 1.0 way of thinking. Let editors opt-in to a category so we don't perpetually have to trim the list here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Overhaul the layout of the WikiProject to make it more functional and less cluttered, introducing tabs, and borrowing good practices from other WikiProjects, such as WikiProject: Military history or WikiProject: History. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This suggestion is too vague to be actionable. Wikipedia often suffers from an overdose of newer editors full of enthusiasm. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Reorder the shortcuts of the project to the following order: WP:INTR, WP:WPFR, WP:FOR. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. INTR comes as more natural to me as a shortcut. Pilaz (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see anything good coming from re-ordering shortcuts. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
I have nominated United Nations Parliamentary Assembly for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022 Erbil rocket attacks
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022 Erbil rocket attacks that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists of ambassadors categorization
Last week I began removing the bilateral relations category from many list of ambassadors articles. Here's a diff of a typical edit of this nature.

So my rationale is: if List of ambassadors of the United States to Norway is the list article in Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Norway, which is in turn in Category:Norway–United States relations, then the list article should not be in the bilateral relations category, because it is already subcategorized. This is fairly basic subcategorization rationale and is consistent with Categorization which I linked in nearly every edit summary.

I do realize there are exceptions to that rule and that's why I'm here. An editor disagreeing with these actions has contacted me at my talk page and has suggested starting a discussion here. --DB1729 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you correctly applied WP:SUBCAT. I don't understand 's logic of "subcats are specific to the list articles and for articles about the ambassadors in particular". SUBCAT doesn't read that way. We're not keeping the category of US Ambassadors in Norway only for biographical articles; it's counterintuitive to assert the list of ambassadors has to go into a parent category. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that the relations category applies because it is in fact related to the bilateral relations between any two countries. Just because a subcat exists, doesn't mean that the main relations category should be excluded from these list of ambassador's articles. The main category is related and not overcategorization. This is a specific topic that is related to the main relationship between two countries and kind of counts as mainspace-related or adjacent to main bilateral relations articles. Ambassador's articles should have the specific subcat. But I think it's a stretch to call it over categorization on the main list articles. However, if it is by consensus from other editors, I don't see it as a major change. But I'm sure we agree articles on diplomatic missions/offices should have the relations categories. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree: SUBCAT does not leave such an exception. While I get your point that you think a parent category is also germane, if an applicable subcat exists, the list goes there. All articles have to move to the lowest subcat where applicable. There isn't an option for a local consensus to have it their way. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chris and DB1729: the lowest subcategory should be chosen, in this specific case. Also, WP:CFD might be useful in some situations. Pilaz (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Use of force by states
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Use of force by states that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied. Thanks for notifying. Pilaz (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Kherson
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Kherson that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Article expansion and copy edit request
Greetings,

A new article Lettergate regarding international relations in between USA and Pakistan has been listed @ DyK, requesting further expansion and copy edit support.

Thanks, &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Country comparison tables/charts
Are these even necessary to compare and contrast information between two countries? If they are, then certainly not all countries' bilateral relations articles should have this. Then it should be two countries with high-level importance of relations such as Russia and the U.S. or China and Japan. Care to see other people's thoughts on this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To clarify, you are talking about these sections which are on a lot of the bilateral relations articles: France–Spain relations. My thoughts are these seem sort of excessive. I disagree that they should be only on "important" country relations though, that seems very arbitrary. I would like to know if they could in general be minimised and templated with data from wikidata as opposed to being manually placed and updated, however. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 18:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right. The one from France-Spain relations seems very bloated and obtrusive. I remember it was removed from the Bhutan–Israel relations in December. LibStar, you stated in your edit summary "we don't include these in bilateral articles". Should we start removing these altogether in your view? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * absolutely LibStar (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I figure we can, but I think we need a wider consensus. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for additional input on List of military alliances
Hi all, myself and others would like the additional input of others in reaching a consensus for determining what to include/exclude on List of military alliances as there have been some minor disagreements recently when attempting to clean up the List. I would like to invite everyone to contribute to the discussion here. Thank you, —  dain  omite   19:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Expanded on Chancery (Diplomacy) stub
Hello fellow editors, I am new here but I have been working on the Chancery (Diplomacy) stub. Please feel free to let me know if there are any issues with the article. Thanks! Buskingbunny (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sino–Soviet relations
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sino–Soviet relations that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice - First Nagorno-Karabakh War
I have nominated First Nagorno-Karabakh War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Biographical image discussion at Talk:Second Cold War
An image of Russian foreign ministry secretary Sergey Lavrov is discussed at Talk:Second Cold War. --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sri Lankan High Commissioner to India
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sri Lankan High Commissioner to India that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Pilaz (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Hillary Clinton
User:Buidhe has nominated Hillary Clinton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:UN Human Rights Office assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:UN Human Rights Office assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 08:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – LordPickleII ( talk ) 14:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

European Union
The European Union article has been thoroughly rearranged over the last week and discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:European Union about whether those changes have improved the article. It would be helpful if members of your wiki project could contribute. For reference, |here is the version of the article from before the recent changes. Furius (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sino–Soviet relations
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sino–Soviet relations that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya
An editor has requested for 2011 military intervention in Libya to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with 2011 military intervention in Libya, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eastern Ukraine offensive
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eastern Ukraine offensive that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Foreign Relations of Dissolved Countries
Hello, I'm not a participant but I was wondering whether or not there are articles on the foreign relations (thereby I mean the "X - Y relation" type of articles) of countries that no longer exist, like Czechoslovakia, Francoist Spain or the previous "incarnations" of Germany. I know that such articles exist for the GDR or the Soviet Union, as these may not be compared to present countries, but I cannot find any articles about f. ex. the Weimar Republic or Czechoslovakia, yet their policies were very much different from the German or Czech relations of today. Apart from that, such articles would be especially useful for all historical research, and make it much easier to understand how the diplomatic relations of the respective time and state influenced later developments. If there are such articles, I would love if someone sent a link. Otherwise, I would like to hear some opinions on the creation of these articles (f. ex. "Republic of Ireland -Weimar Republic relations", etc.). CarolingianCitizen (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There are some, but not that as many as I would have expected. Germany–Soviet Union relations, 1918–1941 is perhaps the most prominent one. No other major ones appear in Category:Foreign relations of Austria-Hungary, Category:Foreign relations of Spain during the Francoist dictatorship, or Category:Foreign relations of Nazi Germany. Some medieval states have bilateral articles, form example the ones in Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of Venice. I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor for the project to write the missing ones, on the condition that they go beyond the history section of current bilateral articles. Pilaz (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, the reason to why I came across this matter in the first place is the (in most cases) poor history section of these articles, as they are (which is obviously their purpose) focused on the current relations. The purpose of the new articles should be solely to inform about the historical relations in more detail, and eventually point out what consequences these had. It might make more sense to begin with the more recent states, and then expand further into the past if that works out though. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Poking around in Category:Foreign relations by former country finds more articles like this, including some about ancient relations. Sino-Roman relations is a featured article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for relations for East Germany and Czechoslovakia exist using the format of using the country names. See Category:Bilateral relations of East Germany and Category:Bilateral relations of Czechoslovakia. There is no reason to change or have a different set of titles for nations that no longer exist. Despite formal names for countries like GDR, it's still referred to as East Germany. All the articles, a small amount at the moment, still use the same titling for relations that exist for "current existing countries" which is ridiculous way to refer to any bilateral relations in the modern era. Former countries' relations should not be given a different naming convention because it no longer exists. The title still refers to the basic subject matter of bilateral/foreign relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ITN nomination for 2022 Haitian crisis
There is currently a discussion taking place over at In the news/Candidates regarding the recent end to a blockade of Haiti's largest fuel terminal. Input from other contributors is welcome! — Matthew  - (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In memoriam
I stumbled on a historical period and editor, User:Ed. In memoriam. -- Thinker78  (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pakistani Taliban/Archive 2
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pakistani Taliban/Archive 2 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ambassador vs. Diplomat
Can someone explain to me the difference between an "ambassador" vs. a "diplomat" and if there's any contextual differences within American diplomacy? The reason is because two categories exist Category:American women diplomats and Category:American women ambassadors and I'm not sure that they both need to exist simultaneously. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An ambassador is just one type of diplomat. Other types of diplomats include consuls, chargés d'affaires, military attachés, and others listed at Template:Diplomats. So Category:American women ambassadors should be a subcategory of Category:American women diplomats. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Inner German border
User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

International reactions to Algeria-South Africa and Algeria-South Sudan relations
I am pointing out this open discussion in case anyone is interested in partecipating. 37.163.204.139 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for George F. Kennan
I have nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian Consulate General in Chennai at AfD
Consulate General of Russia, Chennai has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation welcome. Thanks! Rasnaboy (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)