Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

The section about nationality and citizenship in infoboxes concludes with this sentence: "If needed to indicate legal nationality, use "national of" rather than "nationality", to avoid confusion with ethnicity."

This seems to conflict with the beginning of the section, which says "In biographies, a |nationality= field should not be used. This was previously available for legal nationality, but was often confused with national identity or ethnicity... A |citizenship= field can be used [instead]..."

My impression is that the sentence at the end is a legacy of when the nationality parameter was still in use, and now that the parameter has been deprecated and replaced, the sentence is obsolete and can be taken out. But I wanted to check I wasn't missing anything before I removed it. Richard75 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No objections, so done. Richard75 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

There should be something in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE about how we handle describing a geographical location in an infobox, regardless of whether the article topic is inherently a geographical location.

At a number of infobox template talk pages we've recently encountered a number of disagreements about the extent to which the description of a geographical location would be a key fact of an article.

This has included:

• how to display coordinates at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
  • in the infobox or only in the title?
• how to display distances in the infobox at Template talk:Infobox Australian place, Template talk:Infobox UK place, Template talk:Infobox settlement
  • with a written list or only with coordinates and/or maps?
• how to display maps in the infobox at Template talk:Infobox settlement, Template talk:Infobox mapframe, Template talk:MergedMap, Template talk:Infobox organization, Template talk:Infobox artwork
  • how many maps is too many - 0, 1, 2, ...? should they be shown with a radio button switcher, and/or hidden altogether? how many choices is too many?

There are many thousands of situations like this, and the organic consensus has been that we tolerate a lot. Articles differ a lot - some describe distant places, some describe places where a shape or a line feature is far more important than a point, some describe intricate megacities. Sometimes the default context in the map or in the description should be huge, sometimes local. Sometimes the articles describe a topic where a single central location exists, or a huge number of disparate locations exist, but is a largely secondary detail for that specific infobox to present. Over the last few years we've been streamlining the syntax of how mapframes are added, and I've consistently found that people had improvized hundreds and thousands of these, and I don't believe there has been any reader outcry about it either way.

I think MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE needs to explicitly document this basic organic consensus - that all of coordinates, maps and textual indications of geographical location are all acceptable as potential key information that is generally allowed in infoboxes of articles that have a basic location characteristic.

It should say that the choice of which of these formats to use is left to the editorial consensus in each individual article according to the most appropriate context. So even if a coordinate, a map or a description of location/distance doesn't technically summarize the article text, it's still a conventional element of infoboxes and shouldn't be disqualified.

In turn, we should do away with the idea that any centralized infobox template should strictly mandate the style here by restricting which choice of presentation of geographical information is best for all of the thousands of articles using it. The infobox documentation should advise on the most common styles, but not impose arbitrary limits.

With regard to excesses, we should deal with them just like we deal with people stuffing other non-key info in other infobox fields - on a case-by-case basis, not by eliminating generally useful fields altogether.

The latter should be restricted to truly meaningless fields. For example, if Infobox person doesn't have a coordinates field, there's no point for it to have map or text location fields, either. --Joy (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox chess biography 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. Khiikiat (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, right now, I'm not sure if @Croystron's edits (e.g. this one and this one) are against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Some of the edits being made are certainly contrary to MOS:INFOEDU. INFOBOXPURPOSE has several elements. You have not indicated why you think they might be contrary to that guidance. However, it advises us that less is better and just because there is a field in the infobox, it does not mean it should be populated. The infobox is also a supplement to the lead. I have looked at a few of the edits they have made. IMO, I don't see that the additions are an improvement - particularly the known for, which is probably best left to the prose of the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was tryna ask if their use of |known_for= and |awards= was against the guideline. Thank you for your diligent response and sorry for the ambiguity! Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the close of #RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes: That's a bad close. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:POLL, etc. An RFC comment is not a vote, an RFC comment should provide arguments. For example, I wouldn't have chosen A, but I didn't add a "vote" in the discussion, because I read the comments and felt that I couldn't add any new arguments. That's how such processes are supposed to work on Wikipedia. "Votes" like "per previous arguments" are discouraged. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You're going to have to accept the results. It was open for over a month. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't have to accept a misguided action that went against policy. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Your attempts to overturn a result you don't like, doesn't look good. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you like how it looks. What matters are the rules of Wikipedia. Beland's close is not in line with these rules. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to attempt to overturn the results? than follow Rosguill's advice. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The general process for challenging a close is to first take it up with the closer, then take it to WP:AN if you are not satisfied with the response. It’s only been a few hours since you contacted the closer, they should be given a bit more time to respond. For what it’s worth, I agree that the close rationale is not stellar, although I think it is rather unlikely that a better close would come to any conclusion other than A given the balance of discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In the interest of having one discussion and not four, I will reply at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Consensus still needed?. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

We're all still waiting for you reply over there... Gigman (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I had some chores I needed to do before the temperature outside drops below freezing for the night. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm presuming an editor is implementing the RFC results, across Soviet-born bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Pls see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Capital distance measure Moxy🍁 19:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, there's an ongoing dispute over how to format Hany Abu-Assad's infobox. Could you guys please share your thoughts at Talk:Hany Abu-Assad#violation of wp:blp? Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Native name parameter. Your input is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I argue that signatures are not neccesary on infoboxes because they dont add any substance to comprehension of the subject. WorldClassChampion (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@WorldClassChampion: This has been discussed several times before, see for example Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 35#Signature parameter RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy. Since 2018 RFC on infoboxes, it's been difficult to implement the "Acting" part. See Delcy Rodriguez's infobox, for example. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I am talking about MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. Personally, I liked the flags in the infoboxes. The flags made it easy to see what is what at a glance and also added a little colour to the infobox.

Wikipedia is not a print encyclopaedia, space and printing costs are not a factor. Wikipedia's digital space is enriched with photographs, videos, audio, and that's a good thing. The flags in infoboxes are not a detriment to understanding or readability, quite the opposite in fact.

I could be alone in thinking this, but hopefully not. Are there other editors who'd like to see the flags in infoboxes return? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the guidance away from using flags is prudent as it saves us from having to deal with a constant political flashpoint in cases where multiple flags could plausibly apply to an individual. At best, infobox flags add a bit of flair and restate the obvious; at worst, they are cause for countless edit wars and mis- or overstate individuals’ allegiances. Even with the guidance, we still get some disputes along these lines, but the MOS status quo makes this easily resolvable rather than intractable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

A solution to that could be to not have flags in the infoboxes of biographies. For things like military conflicts there is no ambiguity, because we'd just use the flag that the country/participant used at the time of conflict. To use a cliche: no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree, military conflict affiliations can be very confusing and contentious if they’re multilateral or involve rebellions _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

We do have flags in the infoboxes-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Our image use P&G is that images must be directly relevant and aid in understanding. Images used should not be primarily decorative. WP is primarily a written encyclopedia. Too much visual information in a small space becomes visual noise and if it serves no other purpose than being decorative, it does become a distraction. Flags are permitted in a conflict infobox when they convey information other than the flag itself. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill's points about edit warring and overstated allegiance are correct. Also, most general readers can only recognize a handful of flags so adding them just adds meaningless decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Should we put more effort into consistent enforcement of this? For example, is the sea of flags at International reactions to the 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela OK? Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG states that "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality". Governments issuing official government statements do fall under that "may" clause. They are decorative, but do not raise the additional problems flag use can often introduce. CMD (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

MOS:DECORATION says: Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

For the "visual cues" purpose, we could probably use flag icons in more articles than we do now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The key part of the guidance is that they should provide additional useful information - ie additional to prose. Initial use of a flag icon must include the associated name in text. If there is no additional use of a flag, then the flag is redundant with respect to text and no additional useful information is provided. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Another consideration is template and file number limitations on a page (flag icons are a double hazard as in that they can cause both aforementioned problems). Without doubt data limitations should be in favor prose text. For example the example above of International reactions to the 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela is at 92 images .....for many once you reach that 100 mark page won't load properly.Moxy🍁 21:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That points at this page, which suggests using emojis instead of File: images (e.g., the emoji 🇺🇸 instead of the template US, which calls File:Flag of the United States.svg). I wonder whether it's possible to have a rational conversation about the tradeoffs, or if the reaction would be mainly emotional ("emojis aren't serious enough for a serious encyclopedia"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you really think that suggesting that people who disagree with you are irrational is an appropriate way to discuss anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone irrational. The word doesn't appear anywhere in my comments, and emotional is not a synonym for irrational. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I wonder whether it's possible to have a rational conversation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

People are not conversations. Rational people can have conversations that are driven by emotions and values.

(Also, I haven't formed an opinion about the best approach yet, so it might actually be impossible for anyone to "disagree with" me at this point.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The actual issue with emojis is that while the meaning of each emoji is standard, its actual presentation varie and is outside of the control (and perhaps even the knowledge) of an editor. However, there are emoji-like images on Commons if you do want a seriousness conversation. CMD (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve the 100-image limit. We can put at least 50,000 emojis on a page. We can only put 100 images on a page. And: does it matter that the "actual presentation" of a country's flag varies and is outside the control of Wikipedia editors? AFAICT the US flag emojis all look like a US flag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course it does. The presentation of literally the first flag alphabetically, that of Afghanistan, has been the subject of many disputes here over the past few years. CMD (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for not using a flag at all, rather than an argument for forcing editors to choose one instead of defaulting to the reader's own/local choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite, hence why not using a flag is the general recommendation of the MOS under discussion. CMD (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I could spend all day removing flag icons that are in violation of the MoS. More enforcement of the current guidance would be good, if anyone’s looking for something to do. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There's a followup RFC that may be of interest at Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: Footnote in infobox birthplace. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see subject discussion and Greenland crisis for example of use. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

when should which type of list be used in infoboxes? i.e. when should i use bulleted as opposed to unbulleted lists, vertical as opposed to horizontal lists, etc. to me, vertical and bulleted lists are more legible, but they take up more space, and i don't know how others feel about those. LGaps (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I would use a bulleted list where wrapping of say a long name makes individual points in a list indistinct. Otherwise, I would use an unbulleted list. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that most vertical lists should be unbulleted, via {{ubl}}. Where a list makes more sense to be horizontal (usually because it is reasonably short), generally you should just write it as a prose list with commas, rather than give it special bulleting. Eg: Occupation: Lawyer, politician and political consultant, rather than Occupation:

• Lawyer
• politician
• political consultant

Horizontal lists are more likely to take more room than prose, due to the way items are forced to be separated, and are much more suitable for horizontal content, like navboxes, rather than infoboxes, which are designed vertical, and brief. If the list is exceedingly long, you should always consider whether it belongs in the infobox at all.

(Not to be confused with sidebars, which are a bit different, as they are commonly very long lists, and thus a list format is necessary, and the horizontal format makes more sense for space.) — HTGS (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia does not allow the use of the "nationality" field in an infobox, permitting only “citizenship”; the justification given is that the nationality field was often confused with ethnicity. I will set aside the fact that this confusion was not actually an error, since the two concepts are related, and that (contrary to a fairly widespread opinion) "nationality" is not a strictly legal concept and cannot be reduced solely to the legal status of belonging to a particular state.

A much more serious problem arises when, to give an example closest to me from the area I study, an article concerns, for instance, Adam Mickiewicz - an outstanding Polish poet who, for obvious reasons, was never a citizen of a Polish state - and in the infobox he can be described only as a "citizen of Russia," despite the fact that he was persecuted by the tsarist government for most of his life. The examples could be multiplied: Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Slovaks, and many nations across the world that existed and developed but did not have their own states and did not grant citizenship. The citizenship field alone will not only distort these people’s biographies; it will be directly misleading and open to incorrect interpretation.

Moreover, "citizenship" is a relatively late concept, formed at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe, previously unknown and only later adopted in other parts of the world. What, then, should be done with biographies that fall outside this narrow slice of time and space?

I strongly believe that this situation should be reversed and that the use of “nationality” in its proper meaning should be permitted on Wikipedia. Marcelus (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Which 'proper meaning'? You have just suggested that nationality 'cannot be reduced solely to the legal status of belonging to a particular state'. Which would clearly indicate that there is no single 'proper meaning'. Something that Merriam-Webster for example seems to concur with. . Infobox content should be confined to simple unambiguous matters only, which 'nationality' clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If the citizenship is problematic, leave it intentionally blank. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blueboar The "citizenship" field is not the main problem here. The main issue is that infoboxes lack basic information about a person’s nationality, and there is no way to include it. Marcelus (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is because we get endless debates about “nationality”. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blueboar why not use the same logic then: if the nationality is problematic, leave it intentionally blank? Besides that, of course such disputes can happen, but they concern relatively few cases. Marcelus (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, because consensus says it is a bigger problem than you think (not just “relatively few cases”). We have discussed including “nationality” multiple times, and each time it was decided that it was better to omit it. Sorry you disagree, but it is what it is. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When |nationality= has been problematic (which has unfortunately been fairly often), it's largely been problematic because someone wouldn't leave it blank. For people who are very interested in questions of race and ethnicity, it became a place to put information about race and ethnicity. We had people adding things like |nationality=African American which is not content that most of the community wants in an infobox.

(Also, Citizenship#Polis indicates that there are multiple different ideas about when citizenship started.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There are no circumstances where 'race' would even remotely belong in an infobox. It is a social construct, not a biological fact. And nor should we be ascribing a 'race' to a biographical subject, for the same reason. Racism starts from the premise that 'races' are objective things, and Wikipedia has no business encouraging such misinformation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, I could even argue birthplace, are social constructs too.

(Why is birthplace considered significant, or more so than place of baptism, place of initial registration, or something else? Who decided how to define and name these places?)

We populate info box fields for people’s identities that seem “objective” and “factual”. Even if they’re something that was imposed forcibly and illegally to a living person by a defunct colonial entity, like the Soviet empire, when their “citizenship” is really subjecthood or rights-denying serfdom or slavery, or for whom nationalities were something to be destroyed.

At the same time we reject nationality, nationhood, or national identity because it’s hard to agree on.

“Nationality” also has little meaning before the 18th century, and today has multiple meanings. Legal national status (citizenship) is distinct from belonging to a nation, meaning a people inhabiting a country, or national identity.

The consensus favoring birthplace and citizenship is not neutral or objective. The archive speaks with the voice of the state. Colonised nations and stateless peoples disappear between the fields of an infobox table structure that finds them inconvenient.

So, for example, living person Eerik-Niiles Kross is tagged “Soviet” in the infobox against his explicit wishes, because Wikipedia’s infobox guideline legitimises the illegal and unrecognised Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, while refusing to cope with fairly representing his identity.

Getty Vocabulary Program is an example of a guideline for recording “nationality”, meaning identity more broadly. ~2026-10386-89 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for simple unambiguous factual content. You have thus just made it entirely clear ("multiple meanings") why 'nationality' is not an appropriate parameter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought I may have also shed some light on why avoiding the resolution of nuance and falling back to only recording supposedly “unambiguous factual content” is harmful to knowledge and understanding. Maybe it would require a broader discussion. I hope you read the Getty guidelines for their “nationality” field. ~2026-10386-89 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary ambiguity anywhere is harmful to understanding. Nuance is best discussed in the article body. As for Getty, I fail to see how that link achieves anything, beyond documenting ambiguity of the term 'nationality'. It isn't discussing infoboxes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn’t document the term. It is a reference-based guideline for broadly and usefully representing identity (“nationality, culture, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual identity, or sexual orientation or preference of the person or corporate body”) in a very terse display biography and a database field (I presume is labelled “nationality” for historical reasons), closely analogous to a Wikipedia article’s lead paragraph and infobox. There are useful lessons there, if Wikipedia is to follow sources in representing biographical subjects rather than just taking votes on editors’ isolated opinions and omitting whole classes of information for lack of consensus in discussions.

The current workaround is to only mention some information in the lead, but whether Wikipedia sticks to that or not, editors should be aware of what professional sources do. ~2026-10386-89 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

'Professional sources', or just the one source (which seems to be concerning itself with a database, rather than the biographical prose that Wikipedia has available for nuance?) that you've cherry-picked to support your argument? And no, we aren't taking votes on anything here. We are discussing a potential essay on a tricky subject, and such discussions generally go better if people don't denigrate other people's opinions while presenting their own as the only valid one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not denigrating your opinion, merely offering mine and referring to facts. I apologise if you found offense in something I wrote.

I referred to one example source I’m aware of which stands out as doing a good job systematically improving the way these issues are handled and documenting its methodology. If this is harmful “cherry picking”, I don’t understand what’s wrong with it.

Maybe we can take your criticism to another venue so I can better understand the rules. ~2026-10386-89 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Marcelus: You asked why the nationality field from infoboxes was removed. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 22#Abolishing or disfavoring the "nationality" field and Template talk:Infobox person#Remove and truly deprecate nationality. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Restoring the nationality field, would be problematic. For example - Having "British" in the infoboxes of British bios, wouldn't go over well. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Really? That seems a strange thing to say (especially coming from a non-Brit). In some cases Scottish/Irish/Welsh/English might be preferred, but generally British is much better than nothing. The removals I won't miss are eg "Flemish". Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally, whether I'd describe myself as 'British' or 'English' depends very much on context. As indeed is true for a great number of people of all backgrounds, not just us Brits. There are reams of census data to indicate that people may describe themselves differently over time, or depending on precise wording of the question. Likewise, there is plenty of evidence from the social sciences that individuals very frequently don't consider themselves to be so much of a single ethnicity as being enveloped by a series of overlapping 'layers'. All of which indicates that we aren't dealing with the simple 'facts' that infoboxes are supposed to be confined to. At best, this gives an illusion of objectivity. At worst, it becomes a battleground for the most obnoxious ultranationalism and the like. Wikipedia should be able to do better than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There's also the problem of using "Italian" & "German". Italy & Germany didn't become sovereign states until 1861 (Kingdom of Italy) & 1871 (German Empire). -- GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@GoodDay and where is the problem? Italians and Germans weren't invented in second half of 19th century. Marcelus (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is a terrible old chestnut! In particular Italy (like England having mostly coastal "borders") has been essentially well-known and stable as a geographical unit since antiquity, and the Romans often referred to people and things from Italy as "Italian". The Italian language (with its dialects) has been recognisable for some 800 years. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

For historic persons, it is often more informative to say they were Florentine, Genoese, Sicilian (etc) rather than Italian. Similar for Prussian, Bavarian, Hessian (etc) instead of German… or Spartans, Athenians, Delphine instead of Greek. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as a footnote has been added (and confirmed) at Kaja Kallas's infobox, via consensus. Perhaps we should consider adding that footnote to all Baltic bios, where required. Furthermore, we may consider adding a footnote (where required) to all bios? Norwegian, French, Chinese, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

A poor decision at one article shouldn't be repeated at many others. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Expanding it to other Baltic bios may well be pertinent, since it seems like the objections people had with respect to Kallas apply to the set of Baltic people born during the Soviet period as a whole. Expanding it more broadly than that without thinking of the case-by-case merits would probably come off as a bit WP:POINT-y, although in some cases thinking about it may be worthwhile. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. Let's find out how deep that particular hole that we've dug ourselves into is going to go before we expand it across the whole 'pedia. We might even find that elsewhere, we don't want to use |birth_place= to specify the regime in power. NebY (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should only consider the Baltic biographies here; other discussions may be started separately, treating each on a case by case basis. Now, based on the outcome of the mentioned RFC, I think another RFC (on all three Baltic states) would be viable, with the following proposed options: a) status quo (e.g. "Riga, Latvian SSR, Soviet Union"); b) footnote ("Riga, Latvian SSR" with the footnote); c) rewording ("Riga, Latvia (under the Soviet occupation)" with a link to Latvian SSR). -- Mindaur (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't forget "Soviet Union". GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding a similar foornote to other Baltic bios (once the wording is finalised). Other bio articles I've no opinion about. If there are similar disputes about how to represent places of birth or death in infoboxes, I don't see why editors in those disputes could not use the footnote as a possible solution, but I don't think this is a decision that needs to be made here and now. Indrek (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the reasonable thing to do would be to extend this treatment to people born in the Baltic States around 1940 to 1991. It certainly makes no sense to not extend it to Estonians born in the same place in the same era as Kaja Kallas, and considering that Latvia and Lithuania had essentially similar situations I find it reasonable to extend the footnote treatment there too. As for the vast majority of other birthplace I don't think this RfC should be taken as a relevant precedent as the situation with the Baltic States is quite specific, and the consensus is of course a local one. Footnotes are not particularly desirable in infobxes in the first place and one was only used here as a compromise for a protracted dispute involving editors with entrenched positions (the Kaja Kallas RfC ended up causing people to head over to ANI). ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 22:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

FWIW - I added a footnote to Eerik-Niiles Kross' infobox earlier, per the decision at Kallas' infobox. But, won't add anymore, pending input from the community. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

A user has been adding religious symbols to the pie chart infoboxes in articles such as Religion in India, Religion in Singapore and Religion in Japan.

Since its only one newer user adding it, can I confirm if this is appropriate for MOS? Did we get consensus on this before? Imcdc Contact 02:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This would be a no Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons basically these are equivalent to flag icons in most people's views. They serve no real purpose nor do they link to anything relevant except for the image itself.Moxy🍁 02:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion on a certain parameter in the Template:Infobox basketball biography regarding what situations it should be used in. For those interested, the discussion can be found here. Apologies if this does not belong here! Alvaldi (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

For a considerable amount of time, the infobox at Gaza war was actually at Template:Gaza war infobox and transcluded into the main article; I ended this state of affairs on 22 January by merging it back into the main article. Today, the same state of affairs has appeared at 2026 Iran war, with User:Asarlaí splitting the infobox out into Template:2026 Iran war infobox. I am opposed to this sort of splits because it makes it harder to conform to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: these infoboxes routinely spiral in size (both wikitext and visual) as editors generally have no inclination to match what they include in the infobox to what is in the separate main article, in my experience. It also makes it harder to maintain citation/note consistency between the infobox and the article. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

A decade ago this kind of template was very prevalent... it was changed because of consolidation (that resulted in many templates having too many parameters causing debates now) and so that people would notice when changes were made to the article - the link between article code and article output .(Since most never put the infobox templates on their watch list). Moxy🍁 22:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There are two sides to this issue. Generally, this should not be happening and this is grounds for taking the transcluded infobox to TfD (or just be BOLD). In a high profile breaking event, there are advantages to transcluding the infobox in that it separates the edits being made to the infobox from those being made to the article prose - thereby making it easier to track these edits separately. Such events generally acquire large (bloated) infoboxes very quickly with many references. It can be difficult to distinguish the infobox from the lead prose. Transclusion makes this task easier. These advantages have been used to successfully argue at TfD for retaining the transcluded infobox. However, these advantage only lasts as long as there is a high volume of edits being made to the infobox. This is what happened at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) (initially called Russian invasion of Ukraine) and at Gaza war. You will see that I have made Template talk:2026 Iran war infobox a rediredt to Talk:2026 Iran war. This should always happen so that discussions are centralised. While I don't like this practice, I can see there are advantages as a short-term expediant measure. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Anything presented in an infobox should also be presented in the text… so changes to one should be also changed in the other. Edit them together. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

{{Infobox hydrogen}}. Plus over 120 similar cases. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Cinderella157 outlined the very reason why I created the Iran War infobox. As a major breaking event, the article was undergoing quick-fire editing, causing a lot of edit conflicts and confusion. There were also a lot of newer editors changing the participants and adding unsourced or unverified detail (such as adding Ukraine and Canada as belligerents), causing edit wars. So I thought it was best to separate the infobox from the article, at least for the time being, so that it could be more easily tracked and kept under control. Ideally, for these kind of articles, there should be a way to edit the casualty numbers in one place and have it automatically feed through to the article and infobox. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Part of this discussion was on the use of the nowrap template in the infobox. Somewhat to my surprise, I failed to find any guidance on the use of the template in infoboxes aside from a somewhat vague recommendation at MOS:NBSP that a non-breaking space is "unnecessary" for "short" things in an infobox. This completely avoids the question of what happens if it's a long thing, like a name. I feel like this should be addressed, since (as MisterBee1966 pointed out) the use of a nbsp or nowrap could increase the width of the infobox to an unusable degree. Is there anything on this? Ships & Space_(Edits) 23:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not aware of anything specific to nbsop in an infobox but MisterBee1966 is correct, in that we don't want to increase the default size of the infobox (see WP:IMGSIZELEAD). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This is about MOS:INFOBOXUSE, specifically the paragraph that says:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Consider this to be one part of the "Community discussion recommended" by ArbCom about this subject and an attempt to address the problem they identified that It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely).

There have been prior RFCs such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 143#Infobox RFC in 2018, but I don't think any covered this territory.

The question at hand is: What kinds of concrete, factual criteria might be considered by an editor who sometimes prefers an infobox and sometimes doesn't when deciding whether an infobox is appropriate for any given specific article?

Here are the ones I've considered so far (numbered for convenience in discussion):

1. Whether the page is a list or an article. (Infoboxes are uncommon on lists.)
2. Whether a suitable template exists. (We have an {{infobox royalty}}; we do not have an {{infobox algebra}}.)
3. Whether the subject of the article is a discrete thing (e.g., the Mona Lisa) or a broad or abstract concept (e.g., Fine art or Sports equipment).
4. Whether there are uncontroversial, basic facts that can be communicated clearly in a few words (e.g., an uncontested birth place).
5. Whether a higher proportion of readers with limited English proficiency are expected. (Infoboxes are easier for people who struggle to read text/paragraphs.)
6. Whether a higher number of readers with print disabilities are expected. (Ditto; this would affect, e.g., the article on Dyslexia.)

If you clicked Special:Random a few times (try it out!), do you think you could:

• apply a list like this to whichever article came up,
• produce an answer that satisfied you/subjectively felt like it was an appropriate result for the article, and
• usually get the same answer as other editors?

What else could we add to this list that you believe would be practical and helpful to editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you've identified a very persuasive set of baseline criteria. But I think any top-up test should be supplemented by a list of varieties of topic which are presumed to benefit from an infobox. For example, I think it's plausible that the community might agree that almost every biographical entry will have enough straight-forward, summary-level details to justify an infobox. An ironic statement, given the locus from which the great infobox wars arose, but I'd bet the broader community would endorse it. Articles on individual species or groups of organisms distinct enough to have a formal taxonomic rank below the level of family are probably another strong contender. Published works of most varieties, maybe? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Can we make the fourth limb read "uncontroversial, pertinent, basic facts"? (For example, the height= parameter of {{infobox person}} is pertinent for a basketball player, less so for a chess player).—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, anything you (all) want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

SnowRise, I think the most recent attempt to have a default was for biographies, and it failed. (AFAIK all attempts to establish a default have been to 'include'.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The size of the article also comes into play. The lead is a summary of the article and the infobox is an adjunct to the lead to summarise key facts from the article. If the lead and/or article is small, any key facts from the article will be readily apparent and an infobox is likely redundant. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, thanks for mentioning this. I wonder, though, if that's really how we treat infoboxes these days? Look at a handful of random species articles: Many of our shortest articles have infoboxes, and most (sometimes all) of the content in the infoboxes is not present in the body of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Why? I would think anything in an infobox should be in the article. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually look at a handful of random species articles and tell me if you think the same thing. Then look at a handful of random chemicals, especially the "Identifiers" section in the infobox, and tell me how you would put that content into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Chemicals are a specific exception to summarised from the article at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE because chemical properties are typically presented in tabular form. For a species, it is reasonable to detail key taxonomic levels in prose but not every level in the taxonomic hierarchy is necessarily key information - a bit like addressing an envelope with earth, the solar system, the Milky Way, the universe. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the species taxonomy should also be explicitly listed in MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS. Articles often don't mention even the family name in the prose, and they almost never mention anything higher than that. For many, many articles, the prose contains nothing more about the taxonomic tree than what the article title says.

About 15% of articles have taxoboxes. Those articles are disproportionately among the shortest (as measured in prose) in all of Wikipedia. I believe we decided when WP:NSPECIES was proposed that the median species article had a single-digit number of sentences (possibly 3, but I'd have to look). So "short articles don't get infoboxes" does not exactly seem to be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say, "short articles don't get infoboxes". What I said was: If the lead and/or article is small, any key facts from the article will be readily apparent and an infobox is likely redundant. The shorter the article, the less likely it is that an infobox is an improvement to the article that serves a useful purpose. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• If the article (or its lead) is short, then "an infobox is likely redundant".
• If the infobox is redundant, it is "less likely" to be "an improvement to the article".
• Editors should not add things that don't improve the article.

Ergo: Shorter articles shouldn't (usually) get infoboxes. It seems to me that you said the same thing, only with more words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well infoboxes are always definitionally redundant in their entirety, as a strictly technical matter, in the same way that leads are redundant because they too serve a summary function. I do get what you are saying: that with a stub article, having that info side-by-side can make the redundancy especially noticeable and the content lower utility, but I think there are a few reasons why default taxboxes still make sense: first, the same argument already mentioned with regard to chemical compounds is virtually as compelling for organisms: this is simply the most straightforward and consistent with the state of the academia way of presenting that information. And without question, every article on a species in any encyclopedia ought to have the fullest extent of the taxonomic designations existing in research. Phylogenetic too, to an extent. Of course, at a certain point we begin to get towards overlap with WikiSpecies and wikidata, but that's redundancy I can also live with, and clearly different applications and end-users anyway. In any event, as noted, very few of these articles are going to be unable to accommodate and benefit from some extra content. Indeed, a would hope that the presumption of a taxobox in particular would help encourage the gathering of that info, since the template itself lends to more categories of info being regarded as default features. That would be an unsurprising but nice knock-on effect. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding an exception for taxonomy sounds reasonable and I think would be uncontroversial; I don't recall ever seeing a taxobox objected to.

I think short articles do get infoboxes, but I agree that in those cases (aside from chemical statistics, the taxonomic hierarchy, etc.) "any key facts from the article will be readily apparent and an infobox is likely redundant". I think they're prevalent because installing them is a pleasant low-cognitive-energy thing to do that creates an illusion of productivity and improvement. (I often do things that could be described in the same terms, like stub sorting.) Choess (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we have found two things here:

• Whether there is a specialized infobox, such as chembox or taxobox
• Whether the article is longer than a few sentences

(I think people like to add infoboxes because they amount to a sort of 'trade dress' for Wikipedia, so if you add one, it looks Right™. I do wish they'd start with Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request instead of articles where an infobox is disputed, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

How about, additionally, "Whether the article topic is also the subject of a STEM field for which uniform methods of documentation and classification exist (i.e. chemical compounds, documented species, or stellar bodies)."? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Infoboxes appears to be the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Not just STEM. Other topic areas have structured data in standard formats (legal cases, for example).—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you thinking of {{Infobox SCOTUS case}} and the like? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's an example. {{Infobox musical scale}} is another: the notes chords and modes should be listed in a structured way, because for many people looking up D minor in an encyclopaedia, it's because they're learning an instrument and that's the info they want. Put it in the same place in each article so they can see it at a glance. Surgical procedures are another example (although our current surgical procedure infoboxes are pretty americentric).—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

From the policy-writing angle, I don't feel like we've found the right balance. We've identified a handful of infoboxes we want to encourage (e.g., chembox) but if we say something like "Widely used specialized template", then I expect the next thing we hear to be that {{infobox person}} is one of the the most widely used infobox templates and it's "specialized" because it's only for humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is codifying the uncontroversial, which is fine but perhaps not progress. (I don't recall anyone ever removing a taxobox or a chembox from an article because it was "too short".) My recollection from the height of the infobox wars is that most of the conflict occurred in a pretty narrow band of the spectrum, typically biographies related to the humanities in liberal arts, where structured information could be presented about the subject in an infobox but did not do a very good job of expressing what was most important or essential about the subject.

Another way to express the conflict might be "Do we care more about quickly conveying the essence of the article's subject, or quickly looking up certain pieces of context that should exist for this type of article?" (phrasing inspired by that 2nd paragraph of WP:BALASP).

I might try to sum up the typical arguments on the point as follows. Anti: "Everything in the infobox is in the first 3 sentences of the lead, but the infobox contains only the trivial parts completely misses why this person's contributions were important." Pro: "Many people just want to look up a single popular fact about this person, and we should facilitate that, not try to nudge them into appreciating the person in their entirety." Choess (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

So true, but I don't think it will be practical.

Maybe it could form an introductory statement, rather than an individual criterion? It might sound something like "Editors choose to include or omit infoboxes for a variety of reasons. Taken together, these often amount to an editorial judgment about whether readers are more likely to be seeking a summary of the subject's essence (e.g., filmmaking), or wanting to look up a particular detail (e.g., the name of the film's director)".

I should put Wikipedia:Editorial judgment on my to-do list, or maybe one of you would start it (please do!). I think the idea that editors sometimes have to make a decision about what seems best for the article, using primarily common sense or their personal prior experience of editing Wikipedia, feels like a foreign concept to some of our more rigid, rule-bound editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I don't think we have consensus on which view is more correct, and even if we did, I don't think it would be stable. A decade or so ago, one of the arguments for infoboxes was their ability to produce structured data that could feed into Google summaries, etc. That's been eclipsed by the ability of LLMs to simply ingest huge quantities of prose. Should we lean away from infoboxes towards long-form prose that principally reaches the reader by training LLMs on it? Or should we lean towards them because no one has an attention span anymore? And what happens if in 2040, someone finds a good way to couple ontology to LLMs and structured data becomes important again?

I do very much like your formulation and I think it would be a good addition. Choess (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm groping in the dark towards something slightly different from "widely used specialized template". I haven't found the right words for it. Snow Rise inspired me to think that some types of article are ones that benefit more from tables of key facts at the top right, but they're not just "STEM fields". They are subjects for which "uniform methods of documentation and classification exist" but that doesn't quite capture it. Articles about books are another example, where readers might just want author, publisher/editor, year, or ISBN, so having those key facts at the top right is important. People aren't the same. We can't predict so clearly what data readers might want about a person.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

If we say "tabulated statistics", then I think that will encourage people to think about certain sports. For chembox, we could say something like "containing identifiers or statistics that should not be repeated in the article", but I doubt that would help, and it would leave out infoboxes that you would like to include. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. We want wording that discourages infoboxes about prices or supply chains, equivocates on infoboxes for statistics (sometimes OK sometimes not), and encourages... let me try this wording: infoboxes to summarize other key structured data where the article is part of a series.—S Marshall T/C 18:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the puzzle is whether the information is difficult to express or to process in prose. Reading the contents of a taxobox or chembox as running text would be rather excruciating; the box has a higher density of useful information than the prose. The case is less compelling when infoboxes take compact prose and lower the information density by spreading it over many individual key-value pairs. WP:PROSELINE and WP:NOTSTATS sort of point at a similar general principle that we should try to present information using tools that are effective for conveying it. Choess (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

This is very insightful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Formic acid as being part of a series, but Chemistry has a sidebar at the top that declares it to be part of a series. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, of course. "Part of a series" isn't good wording. Like you I find Choess's thoughts very helpful.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the wordsmithing too. Maybe [Infoboxes should be used...] "When the usual context for the article's subject is difficult to express in concise, readable prose (such as the many quantitative properties shown in chemboxes)". Improvements welcome. Choess (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course formic acid is part of a series. Consider the blanket term carboxylic acid and the number of carbon atoms in the primary chain:

1. Formic acid
2. Acetic acid
3. Propionic acid
4. Butyric acid
5. Valeric acid

and so on, in theory ad infinitum, although you will reach a point where the substance is not only solid, but isn't very acidic either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is, but at the same time WAID is right to suggest that "part of a series" is poor wording because some people will invent their own definition of a series. Err... "The article is about something that has essential data or properties that are best out as a table or diagram"?—S Marshall T/C 07:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That's better. Maybe not "diagram", though?

Whatever wording we come up with, I think that adding something like "such as {{chembox}} but not {{infobox person}}" will go a long way towards clarifying the intention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Table or tree diagram?—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a diagram in an infobox that you think is emblematic of the desired type? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to capture the concept of... let's try, "a graphical representation of order, sequence, or hierarchy that helps the reader grasp the basics of the topic and is rendered in wikicode rather than a picture." So, Welsh language, with its indented bulleted list to show how it fits in a language taxonomy. Triceratops, with its graphical timeline. Hydrogen, with its inline periodic table. Tesseract, with its coxeter-dynkin diagram. Gulf War with its comparative tables showing the military strength of each belligerent. I could go on and on.

In fact, I think I will. Red deer with its graphical representation of conservation status. E major with its graphical representation of its key signature. Arabic script, with its table of glyphs. Pink, with its top bar that's pink to show you what pink is.

I'm stumped. I don't have wording that unifies these things. This could be a dead end in which case I apologize wholeheartedly.—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This is IMO a good discussion, even if we can't solve the problem today.

What about the route diagram in {{Infobox rail line}} (See, e.g., Red Line (BART) and click away from the map to the route diagram.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• I would add 'Any article that has in image boxed in the lead, may be replaced with an Infobox, instead.' Images suggest concrete subjects. And the preference for one box over the other is really what, aesthetic? But an infobox can serve the boxed image function too, and if it has facts in it, tying it to the article fine, it provides different levels of summary per WP:summerize. And perhaps add a reminder, that not all fields need to be filled, and often they should not be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be popular. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

IMHO, infoboxes shouldn't be included in bios, unless its politicians, religious leaders or sports figures. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you think your view is popular? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there's an ongoing dispute over how to format |citizenship= in Audrey Hepburn's article. Could you guys please share your thoughts at Talk:Audrey Hepburn#MOS:INFONAT? Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)