Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject International relations and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:WPFR

This project page was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep (withdrawn).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 61 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Bilateral relations articles

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I've noticed that Kawnhr (talk · contribs) has been changeing the lead statement like here. I have worked on 100s of bilateral articles and the standard introduction is that. They have only changed this for Canada related articles, there are probably over a 1000 of these bilateral articles. Also this is changing from the standard "See Also" section in 100s of bilaterals. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think there is consensus (and support in the MOS) for edits like the first one changing the lead sentence. See the past discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6#Lead sentences. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is true that "X–Y relations are the relations between X and Y" is the common introduction, but it is by no means universal — there were several foreign relations articles that did not use that even before I started my edits, such as Canada–United States relations, Canada–Palestine relations, Canada–France relations, Canada–United Kingdom relations, etc. Regardless, just being the common introduction does not mean it is unassailable or even correct.

The Manual of Style is clear that we do not absolutely have to include (and bold) the article name in the lead. MOS:AVOIDBOLD says If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy. Furthermore, because MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID says we must avoid putting links in the boldface recitation of the title, that means we can't link to X and Y countries without mentioning them again, which leads to awkward, redundant phrasing. But don't take it from me; MOS:REDUNDANCY says The title need not appear verbatim in the lead if it is descriptive., and specifically uses the "X–Y relations are the relations between X and Y" as something not to do. I am only bringing these articles in-line with what the MOS suggests.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by pointing out I've only done this for Canadian articles. Is it that I've now put Canada out of step with the others? Well, I'm only one person… I can't make changes to over a thousand pages in two days…

That said, I fully own up to making a mistake with the "See Also" section. My intent was to remove repeated links (generally frowned upon per MOS:NOTSEEALSO), but I forgot that navboxes don't (or don't always) display on mobile, so those links are still helpful for mobile readers. I'll go through my edits and restore those. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. It's been over a week since this thread was created and nobody else has objected… can I take this to mean that the changes are fair game? Would it be controversial to resume these edits? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even though it's been over a week, I would like to see more community input. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an alternate, I've seen "X–Y relations are the relations between these 2 countries." LibStar (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree with others above that the change seems good. "X–Y relations are X–Y relations" is not a good opening, best to just go into the topic per MOS:REDUNDANCY. CMD (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how that's meaningfully different… it still has the same problem of redundancy. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply