User talk:MosquitoDestroyer

The Sea of Blue in MOS that you often cite does not discourage putting two links close together, unless they appear to be a single link. Please restore all of the "Sea of Blue" and "too many" type of links that you have removed from various articles. ~2025-38602-34 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about three links consecutiely (or so many links condensed it makes reading difficult for the reader) Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Links don't make reading difficult for me. But removing every second of three links causes a lot of damage to the usefulness of Wikipedia. I hope you will reconsider your policy. ~2025-38602-34 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, you know what, you are right; and I shall reconsider my policy. Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Also my chief reason is this sentence in MOS:OL: "For example, because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination." Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your change at Pakistan Armed Forces removing the links from the table. Per MOS that is fine. Wikipedia articles will have link-dense sections, that is fine. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine Since when was linking major countries fine? Abni (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Since the MOS:

"Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily. The page from which the hyperlink is activated is called the origin; the page the link points to is called the target.

In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in file captions. But as a rule of thumb, link only the first occurrence of a term in both the lead and body of the article."

Look at the sidebar of pages: like World War I or CERN. If you notice when you expand the members of CERN list in the table, they're links.

You need to calm down with this de-linking thing. Jasphetamine (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine I removed those links because major countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, should not be linked under the MOS, not because there are too many links. Abni (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we leave it as-is for now; if anyone gets mad about the countries in that little dropdown style list box being linked they'll blame me not you. In the mean time let's do an RfC so we can get some more input on this issue. Sound good? Jasphetamine (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion would help us out, yah? Jasphetamine (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine RfC, third opinion? Look, fellow editor, before any of those can be considered, I want to know the reason why you undid my edit removing links to major countries. I want a plain, simple, and short reason. Abni (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I did so because:

• it maintains consistency in how other articles which have lists like that do it, and because in that specific part of an article the MOS allows for it.
• because I saw some people being somewhat rude to you on your talk page about this issue, and felt that I could be the one who people get mad at for a bit while we both get more clarity on the full picture of the consensus on this issue.
• because we're building an encyclopedia that is wired up with links and this matters.
• because I don't think your edit improved the article despite that being your intention.

Nobody is in charge of enforcing MOS, we do it with consensus, and I think both of us care about this and we are both thinking to ourselves "this just doesn't make sense. Sometimes it is one way sometimes it is another..." and we should bring in someone who isn't going to be rude to you to help out, because seeing a particular person's attitude being needlessly bossy towards you annoyed me, to help us out.

I did it because I see you working hard on the details of this site that a lot of people just ignore because it isn't glamorous -- and this is the only way for me to help you out. It was not out of disrespect or questioning your judgement. It was just to pause things for a bit. It looks like @Adolphus79 and you have good rapport, let's ask him for some advice to start out.

I apologize if I caused offense, I mean no disrespect. Have a good New Years. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine No apology needed as no offence was taken. I was not aware the MOS has exceptions on links to major countries so I understand now. I would still like @Adolphus79's advice though. Abni (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I'm relieved I didn't upset you on New Years! I really appreciate you going along with my suggestion so cooperatively. I look forward to figuring this out with ya.

Jasphetamine (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

On that note, since it is 3:20 am for me, Ima go offline and come back in the morning at 7:30 or 45 am. Abni (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

(←) I almost commented on this last night, but got distracted by the regalia of the evening. So... it's 8am on New Year's Day, I'm not seeing too clearly yet, and I am not a 100% expert on everything so I won't make any definitive statements, but...
WP:SEAOFBLUE is annoying (the scenario, not the policy), anytime we can break up the blue without disrupting the helpful links I am all for it. In this instance, I believe the TA is correct. With the links separated by commas, and each going to their own article (not piped or WP:EGGs), this does not appear to be a case of SEAOFBLUE. If it had been linked as [[thought]] [[disorder]], or if that whole string ("hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder") was a single link somewhere, or if any of the links had been EGGs, it would need fixed. In this case, the original looks fine to me, they are different terms, clearly separated (no one should be surprised about where they wind up after clicking on one of the links), and each is linked directly to their own article. It is a lot different than, for example, "[[President]] of [[the]] [[United]] [[States]] [[Donald]] [[Trump]] [[speech|spoke]] [[December 31|yesterday]] at the [[White]] [[House]]" (an obvious case of SEAOFBLUE).
Next, regarding this edit, I also agree with de-linking the country names in the body (per OL, "In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)"). That being said, I believe that linking them in the infobox (only once, for the first instance) is OK, although per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, it should only be a simple text link, and not include the flags. So, it seems to me that both of you are kinda correct and kinda wrong in this instance.
The good and the bad of Wikipedia (just like in the real world), is that each little guideline and rule can be interpreted slightly differently depending on a user's experience and/or their intent. Like Jasphetamine mentioned above, this is why we do everything on consensus. If you don't like a rule, you can always start a discussion to change the consensus, and sometimes they change without you even knowing about it and you are surprised by someone else pointing out that the way you've "always done it" is suddenly wrong.
I'm not sure if this was the exact comment that either of you were looking for, but this is what you get at 8am on New Year's Day. Feel free to discuss while I go get caffeinated and try to remember my name. (haha) - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I completely agree with your take on the MOS and the edits in question. So you and I are in complete agreement, we'll see how Abni feels, but I'm sure he'll find your post as agreeable as I do. I'm going to do a quick drive-by of your talk page now, which I just want to make note of here so it is clear that it isn't to stay under Abni's radar.

Jasphetamine (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I stand corrected... after looking at several articles just now, it appears the consensus is that countries are not linked in the infoboxes either. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

And I just re-read MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:LINKING, and neither specifically mention countries inside infoboxes. So, unless someone can point me to a more specific rule about this, I am going to error on the "safe side" (and apparent consensus based on looking at several other infoboxes) and say that, per OL, countries should not be linked in the infoboxes. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus' advice (and judgement). I think Jasphetamine understands why I removed those links now. Abni (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

OK... I think I can clarify this much better for everyone now that I am fully sober and awake... I noticed that the country as a location is not linked on CERN, but the participants are (as each individual country, and boo to whoever broke INFOBOXFLAG there, haha). Also, the problem with comparing the Pakistan Armed Forces and World War I infoboxes is that you are again comparing a "location" vs. a list of "participants". Per OL, countries (as geographic locations or addresses, assumedly, based upon the rest of that bulleted list on OL) should not be linked, but that would not include the "participants" in a war/event (normally listed as smaller units, organizations, etc., the WWI main article being an obvious exception). Off the top of my watchlist, another quick example is June 2025 Los Angeles protests against mass deportation, the location is not linked, but the organizations involved are. I searched again, including reading the documentation on several of the infoboxes in question, and still can't find a definitive guideline or policy that says this specifically, but it does appear to be the general consensus. I apologize for not looking into this more before my original comment, it was not the best morning to wake up to something like this (haha). - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Essentially, I removed those links to major nations such as Brazil, the U.S and K, and others, such as France or China, because OL states they (should) not be linked. I think @Jasphetamine just interpreted my reasoning incorrectly as removing them because there's too many links in the infobox. Abni (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

So this, to be clear, isn't meant to be argumentative or anything:

What specific sufficiently robust, stable, and universally applicable parameters did you consider when deciding which nations were major?

If we say the G8 or G20 and nail that down, then I'm kinda totally fine with the messy infoboxes. But we can't use original research or intuition to organize an encyclopedia.

Maybe G20? Though this still won't solve the issue of Egypt being a major nation in an article about the Punic Wars but not an article in the context of modern Egypt. However I still will defer to Adolphus79's judgement.

Jasphetamine (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Qualifications I use to constitute a major country:

• 1. High cultural or political influence; whether regional or international. An example being the fact that the U.S. dollar; currency of the United States is the currency of several other countries.
• 2. Significant or strong diplomatic power and/or influence; such as, for example, the fact that France is in more international organisations and institutions than any other country or that the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
• 3. High military power, budget or influence; whether regional or international. An example being the fact that the U.S. military has more than 750 bases across the world, or the fact that the U.S. spent more money on the military in 2022 than the next 10 countries combined ($877 billion).
• 4. Strong economy, usually $1T GDP or more, and/or high economic power or influence; whether regional or international. Don't really have an example for this.

Please note not all qualifications have to be met for the nation to constitute a major nation Abni (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your qualifications are not robustly formulated, academically rigorous, and are relying on synth and independent research which isn't our job. Can't use those.

We really need to do something like classifying a major nation as one who has either or both membership in the G7 or a permanent veto on the UN Security council. Nobody is going to tell you those countries aren't major so if nothing else they're safe to de-link.

@Ababajoni if you and @Adolphus79 BOTH prefer the layperson stat-check approach over using existing institutions I'd like to have the opportunity to have some time to try to change your minds on this aspect.

Best,

Jasphetamine (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Membership in the G7 isn't good enough, nor is a veto in the UNSC; it leaves out dozens of nations like Germany, Pakistan, India, etc. Abni (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not? That's enough countries to run the world. Also Germany is not left out, the EU has a seat.

You're going to prolly think for a few more min and really quickly start realizing how we're not the people who get to decide if a nation is major or not and for good reason. =^) we just take information that experts have agreed is true and organize it.

My proposal of bluing all the darn things eliminates this subjectivity but *shrug.* If we can't do that, then we gotta use the G7+UN or G20 at most but that will have a ton of countries nobody thinks are major. That is kinda the point of the G20 tho if you think about it.

Jasphetamine (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I dunno man, G20, G7, veto on the UNSC just isn't enough. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they could end the world with them, yet they aren't a member of any of those bodies say for the UNSC but it isn't permanent like your veto requirement would require them to be. Or Nigeria, with the world's sixth-largest population and largest in Africa (and namesake union), it is in none of those bodies; that's why not. Abni (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

According to what academic source?

Jasphetamine (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

An academic source to show that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, is not a member (or permanent one) of the G20, G7, UNSC or to show that Nigeria has the world's sixth-largest population; the largest in Africa and namesake Union? Abni (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I pinged in some heavyweights. Maybe they'll set us on the right track.

Jasphetamine (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

So do I, this discussion seems everlasting. Abni (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

At least we're staying civil with each other which is more than can be said for a lot of this kind of thing. @Jonesey95 or @Miniapolis might also have a second to help, they're GOCE gurus.

Jasphetamine (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I am very grateful for that, and wish to keep it going. Abni (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I was pinged here, but the above discussion is far too long and involved for me to understand the issues at hand. Feel free to provide a summary of your question(s), along with links to example diffs at the article(s) involved. Have the issues, whatever they are, been discussed at any talk pages other than this one? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

For me, I removed links to countries, that I, at the least, constituted major, such as France and the United States on the article Pakistan Armed Forces. ababajo (ping me here! / view my contributions here!) 04:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC) 04:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. It seems inconsistent to provide links to some countries and not others. I wouldn't do that; it seems like some sort of unnecessary bias, when it is easy to treat all country names the same. More importantly, I don't know why there are flags in the infobox; have you looked at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I have, and I saw the flagicons but just didn't remember to remove em. ababajo (ping me here! / view my contributions here!) 04:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 @Jessicapierce We need MOS/GOCE experts this is getting a bit silly if either of you could join and help Abni and I lock this discussion in maybe it won't have to wind up in RfC. Thanks,

Jasphetamine (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I never said major, I'm not sure where that came from. OL just says "countries", so I would assume that meant all. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

So would I as well. ababajo (ping me here! / view my contributions here!) 04:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

So I think this got a little hectic and at this point I'll just let @Ababajoni ... @MosquitoDestroyer .... wait whats going on. I'm confused. Hopefully the editor formerly known as Abni was included there?

Anyway as per my initial commitment I defer to @Adolphus79 and I'll just leave this type of editing alone. I think maybe at some point it is worth revisiting the whole "major country" thing but that is a separate issue from this and I kinda made this a mess by conflating them.

I won't be reverting, contesting, or otherwise poking my nose in any OL related edits. I'm hoping we can walk away from this dispute on good terms.

Best wishes,

Jasphetamine (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Kudos to both of you for remaining civil and doing the right thing by asking for a third-party mediator... I don't think anyone was necessarily wrong, and we all got to learn a little more about linking in the wonderful world of Wikipedia... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 Adolphus79 the Wise, you'll be Socrates (but not necessarily Greek) someday, don't know about me though. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 05:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If you check the section on tables, which is what infoboxes are even though they're invoked with a specific template, it says they are the place to link up. To my understanding the vast majority of the MOS section we're using is by and large concerned with in-line links since they affect readability and navigability of an article. The lack of instruction on not linking in infoboxes is, in my opinion, evidence for this.

"Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in file captions. But as a rule of thumb, link only the first occurrence of a term in both the lead and body of the article."

Since an info box is both in the lead of an article, and displays data in table form, it would seem that is a good place for linking things up, since then we connect up pages, tuck the blue text away in an organized format that removes the issue of chain links, and most importantly we don't have to do things like parse what counts as a "major nation." It also removes the ambiguity between why CERN or WWI's infoboxes have fully linked up country names while an article like the Pakistani one would not. It therefore creates a more cohesive and intuitive navigation experience for users. If they're reading about something international they can go to thee top and learn about any country involved in the same spot. I really hate the idea of editors deciding per-article if nations are major or not. It also leaves us with no guidance about territories of major nations, nor historically major nations which are no longer major.

Anywho, I'm not going to make this difficult for us and die on a hill or something, and thus commit to defer to @Adolphus79's judgement of consensus. I just wanted to make it clear that my primary reason for wanting to keep infoboxes fully linked is that it removes a ton of ambiguity for editors, is not detrimental to the article, and doesn't require calling arbitrary nations unimportant. It was not a misunderstanding of your reasoning Abni, you explain yourself quite clearly, although I can see how that may have been the impression I gave. I did not mean to imply you were not communicating your motivation effectively.

Nap time for me!

Jasphetamine (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

(←) Infoboxes and tables are different, and I believe the MOS advises against consecutive links unless necessary. I agree with Jonesey that all countries should be linked for consistency but frankly, this looks like a tempest in a teapot. Feel free to open an RFC if you want. Miniapolis 17:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi MosquitoDestroyer, thank you for your work reverting vandalism and other inappropriate edits. Please be more careful about labelling edits as "vandalism", though – vandalism is a conscious attempt to deface Wikipedia articles with random nonsense, deliberate errors, unnecessary profanity and so on. The key thing is that a vandal is not trying to edit constructively. An edit such as the one you reverted here is probably a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, which means it is not vandalism. (The nationality in the short description could plausibly be where he plays now. If the consensus is that the nationality should refer to where he was born, the edit should still be reverted, but it is important to assume good faith). WP:VAND has more information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bonadea Yes, I am aware about being careful labeling edits as vandalism when they are actually good-faith edits, I will read up once more on the WP:VANDAL page, and no problem, thats just day 1 of RecentChanges patrol. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 11:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MosquitoDestroyer! I appreciate your support in the past! Would it be possible for you to help me out with some edit requests for this page? I have a disclosed COI and can't make any direct changes to the page. Thank you in advance!! TheBlueOwl (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)