Template talk:Russia–United States relations

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

What is up with all the parenthesis in this template?

[edit]

Lots of parenthesis ... one or two of the pairs make sense, but the others seem mysterious. Specifically, what is meant by the following? ...

Havana syndrome (Zersetzung)

Was the editor trying to say Havana syndrome is an example of Zersetzung? A template is not a great place to make that point. No big deal, but it seems confursing, especially in a template. Noleander (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template Reversions

[edit]
Note: this also involves Template:Soviet Union–United States relations but its being discussed on this page so as to not repeat the same thing on another talk page.

There is no reason to revert to the old version. The current version is much more readable and organized. The only person who has brought this up (not sure if complained is the right word) is User:WikiCleanerMan because they have reverted back to an older version that creates more effort to finding information and is far less organized. The old version is so packed in a word-after-word state similar to reading a book that you really need to look hard and read deeply to find what you are looking for, while the current version is very organized and makes it very quick and easy to find relevant information. 4vryng (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove that it is unreadable in the former state. You have tripled the size of the template which it makes much harder to find links to articles for the subject at hand. Your edits require scrolling to find articles. Templates like these are for linking articles related to the subject at hand, not information. Information is for articles. You also link unrelated articles such as List of diplomatic missions of Russia, Foreign relations of Russia, you relink the main article, Russia–United States, in the template, Ministry of Industry and Trade (Russia), and Culture of Russia. None of these links outside the main link is related to the subject at hand. And it seems you are doing a violation of NPOV by making pro-Russia edits to Russia-specific articles. I suggest you revert course. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If others have any feedback that would be great, more feedback is appreciated.
"I suggest you revert course" - these comments do not help
"And it seems you are doing a violation of NPOV by making pro-Russia edits to Russia-specific articles." - these comments do not help, its unrelated to this template reversion you made. I am helping update wikipedia articles that were lacking in information and references, I am confident I have made them much better for informational purposes when people want to read/learn/do research compared to the older versions of these articles. I myself was curious about Russia-USA relations/history given what is going on in American news constantly discussing the Russian and Ukraine war and I noticed the articles I was reading were poorly written, lacking references, and could use some updating - so I dont see how this is an issue. Had they been written with more references, correct wording/grammer, and more info I never would have touched them.
"You have to prove that it is unreadable in the former state." - The current state its in is the proof, what more proof are you asking for? It is far easier and more organized to find the information far more quickly in its current state versus the olders state where you had to read word-after-word in a book format almost to find information. The scrolling is not an issue, the making it easier to find the information is what is important, how is a small bit of scrolling going to cause the ability to research/read/find what is needed an issue? The old version makes it more difficult from what I see. Again if more people can chime in that would be great.
"You also link unrelated articles such as List of diplomatic missions of Russia, Foreign relations of Russia, you relink the main article, Russia–United States, in the template, Ministry of Industry and Trade (Russia), and Culture of Russia." - I dont think it should be an issue to add a way for people to find any additional missions they have, your simply providing a link for them, same with the other links. As for the "Relations Russia–United States Soviet Union–United StatesRussian Empire–United States" we can remove it, maybe we can change the wording the show older relations or simply remove that small part. I changed it to "Old Relations" and removed the Russia–United States portion, would this be more workable for everyone? 4vryng (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Old relations are not thing. Russian Federation is a successor to both the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. They were individual nations, not older version of relations. No evidence to back this claim. If you want to add additional missions, i.e. consulates or other diplomatic posts, positions, or offices, you add those links where it belongs. You added unrelated articles to the navbox.
Only you are claiming the navbox was unreadable. And you made changes based on your issues, not issues that other editors or readers were having. You still haven't cited evidence for it. "The current state its in is the proof" - Not how evidence/proof works. No other editor had this problem you are having.
"I myself was curious about Russia-USA relations/history given what is going on the in the USA with the news constantly discussing the Russian and Ukraine war and I noticed the articles I was reading were poorly written, lacking references, and could use some updating - so I don't see how this is an issue" - because navboxes are just for linking articles about the subject at hand. What is relevant to the information on the articles is irrelevant to templates. Second time explaining this. And this becoming a Wikipedia:I didn't hear that.
You should revert course because I provided evidence of how disruptive this is. Onus has been on you to claim your edits make sense - you still have failed to address the issues at hand and really provide a clear rational for these changes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what is the Onus part, can you direct me to that page?

"You should revert course because I provided evidence of how disruptive this is." - I dont know how a revert to an old version would not qualify as disruptive either?

"Old relations are not thing..... [response]" - so if i remember correcly this part was already in the older template (old version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Russia%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832906) I just sorted it so it was made more sense, but if you think we should remove that part then go for it - no one had ever removed it previously. Or if you have another suggestion would love to hear it. 4vryng (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC

Wikipedia:Onus. And I did provide such as linking irrelvant articles. Its not disruptive to rever your edtis because the navbox is a complete mess. The solution is not divded it up into every little section for speific articles like you did for both countries respective diplomatic missions when section is enough. Two things are not always better than one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Only you are claiming the navbox was unreadable....." - it was hence I made an update it to better organise it and make it easier to find the information, but again I would love more feedback from others since I dont agree with the older version being easily readable.

"The current state its in is the proof - Not how evidence/proof works. No other editor had this problem you are having." and "Onus has been on you to claim your edits make sense - you still have failed to address the issues at hand and really provide a clear rational for these changes." - yes the current state is the proof, try to find for example a specific trade relations or space relations if you do not know the exact name of it. In the previous version you may not know what to look for, but here is is pretty organised and easier to sort through all the words shown - basically it narrows down your focus so your not reading the template's old version like a book.4vryng (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"because navboxes are just for linking articles about the subject at hand. What is relevant to the information on the articles is irrelevant to templates" - would be happy to have those links removed then, I find its easier to do research and learn when you have direct links to broader subject matter to, I unsure where in wikipedi protocol it indicates otherwise but if this is an issue why not remove it then? I dont mind myself. The response was related to "violation of NPOV by making pro-Russia edits to Russia-specific articles." and I was discussing other articles I was working on.

"No other editor had this problem you are having" - need more feedback from others because I dont think its fair to assume this is the case since only me and you are having the discussion. If no one had previously made an edit its possible they just did not want to touch the template since its not exactly the greatest experience sometimes sitting infront of the computer when a person could "touch grass" so to speak, also maybe people just did not want to touch the template because its a hot topic in the news, and maybe other reasons why the edits were never made. 4vryng (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are dragging this and you are choosing to not listen to what I am saying. It's clear you don't understand how navboxes work. WP:Navbox. The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. You have created too many unncessary groupings, expanded the navbox where it is reading an article instead of navigating through a navbox - which is what it is for to navigate, not scroll. "If no one had previously made an edit its possible they just did not want to touch the template since its not exactly the greatest experience sometimes sitting infront of the computer when a person could "touch grass" so to speak, also maybe people just did not want to touch the template because its a hot topic in the news, and maybe other reasons why the edits were never made." Not how or why people edit navboxes no matter the subject. What goes on in the real world is not relevant to templates like these. These are just for articles for linking articles related to the topic at hand. And the further you drag this onward about saying your edits are proof when you are the only to make such claims without others or actual evidence without proving that it was reading like a book, you will be reported at ANI for not listening and providing a rationale for these changes. Navboxes don't read like books, I have never heard a more nonsensical argument over making certain changes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you can report it to ANI if you want; i have already requested a full lock on this template until we come to a consensus
i still would like feedback from others to
so you dont agree with my comments above? "try to find for example a specific trade relations or space relations if you do not know the exact name of it."
i am reading the link you provided, it says "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." - the format its is not forbidden, as for "overly busy" I dont agree with this and actually I think the old version was "overly busy and hard to read and use"
"You are dragging this and you are choosing to not listen to what I am saying. It's clear you don't understand how navboxes work." - how am i draggin this on, this was not an issue for all the many readers who have been viewing the template until the revert was made today. And your not listening to me either I could assume is correct? i dont agree with you simply making a revert without feedback from others, especially the scale of your revert also.
In the link it says "The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc." - I do have them in clusters by topic, such as "Space", "Trade", etc
In the link it also says "Gives immediate information to equivalent elements" which I have done so by allowing users eyes to directly find specific topics such as "Space", "Trade", etc
"Navboxes don't read like books, I have never heard a more nonsensical argument over making certain changes." - the previous layout compressed way too much information only too few sections making it harder for a person to find a specific topic, it felt like I was randomly trying to find an article in the many links that had been provided so yes its like your reading a book trying to find a topic that could have been better organized/structured. For example, lets so you are trying to find info on space, if you look at the previous version you may have hard time trying to focus on links specifically to that because its not clear where to look first and which links are specifically on that subject matter (unless maybe the link has a space related term in it).  4vryng (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC) A second example, look at the Template:Soviet Union–United States relations also. Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its a middle school student writing a paper for class but no knowledge base on the subject. In the old version how do you know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in each group cluster and its unclear which links are a "policy" related (which are Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option) versus something else especially if a person does not even know what word to look for or what the name of the policy is, its makes looking for a subject matter hard and makes a person open many links to figure out which articles are policy related - old version of template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations&oldid=1298832738 The small amount of extra scrolling in the new version is worth it and can save a person the troubles of trying to search through all those links in the older version. Its just a few scrolls, this small size difference should not be relevant given how big the change has been for those searching for something. 4vryng (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is based on agreement is based upon usually most users agreeing on a change. You are the only one who wanted this change. Consensus is not met here. I suggest reverting yourself going back to the original format and just add relevant links. Just because you say it is better does not mean it is. Saying it is not proof. Nor has it been shown to. One group for diplomatic posts is enough. It's like creating a separate navbox for Russian diplomatic posts in the United States. More navboxes like more sections are counter productive and on top of that, your edits don't offer simplicity. It makes it more complicated to easily navigate. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:WikiCleanerMan it appears I needed to directly notify/ping you to let you know of the dispute resolution was active. I will also leave a message in your talk page. I can reopen the case so we can start again - just needed to notify/ping you as they requested, sorry for any confusion. I will repost the moderation link below after I reopen it. 4vryng (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: are you okay if i make the resolution request in a few hours?
Just want to make sure you are okay to continue so they dont close my request 4vryng (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template in its current form is incredibly bloated and unwieldy. Templates are meant to aid users in navigating the site, but it is unnavigable in its current format. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note prior to my response I want to indicate Bgsu98 I believe you did not act as neutral third party here and you simply reverted to wikicleaners older version - not keeping my newer version as you indicated in your statement above you think its bloated, this does appear to show bias without a discussion. I cannot undo back to the newest version and I have been blocked, if you blocked it does not seem fair you can decide which version to use based on your opinion and not allowing others to take part. That appears to be a misuse of power (if you were the one who blocked me?) I was clicking the wrong Undo button, i was clicking Tags: Twinkle Undo, I jumped to the conclusion to quickly on that sorry!-4vryng talk 05:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I indicated in dispute resolution I had started in the past:
    My counterpart in the discussion is requesting we use the old version of the Template:Russia–United States relations (old version) and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations (old version). They believe the size of the current templates are too large now, requiring extra scrolling and making it harder to find links.
    I do not believe any updates need to be made to the current templates for both Template:Russia–United States relations and Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Yes I do acknowledge the templates have become larger in appearance when scrolling vertically, however the level of organization provided now compared to the older versions before makes the update a huge improvements for all Wikipedia users using the template. An example of how the current templates' layouts/appearances are now advantageous compared to the old templates are that the older versions compressed way too many links/information in too few sections making it harder for a person to find a specific topic. It felt like I was randomly trying to find an article in the many links that had been provided - giving it the feeling like your reading a book trying to find a topic that could have been better organized/structured. As an example, look at the Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its a middle school student writing a paper for class but the student has no knowledge base on the subject or what links/articles/words to look for. In the old version how do they know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in few sections and its unclear which links are "policy" related - do you just click all the links and hope for the best? This can take a long time given all the links and this is not efficient. But with the current version it can now be easily found which you can check are: Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option. Robert try looking at the old version of the template and try to figuring out which links are policies. Much harder versus the current Template:Soviet Union–United States relations template right? The small amount of extra scrolling vertically in the new version is worth it and can save a person the troubles of trying to search through all those links in the older version; this small size difference should not be relevant given how big the change has been for those trying to search for something. A second example, lets say you are trying to find info on Space. If you look at the old version you may have hard time trying to focus on links specifically on space because its not clear where to look first and which links are specifically on that subject matter (unless maybe the link has a space related term in it) versus the newer version. One thing to note in regards to the templates themselves when first viewing them on an article, the templates can be set to collapsed mode using the code {{Russia–United States relations|state=collapsed}} and {{Soviet Union–United States relations|state=collapsed}} - as shown on their template pages - if they are the only template on an article. This gives the user the option to expand it or keep it collapsed without having catch a users eyes during the initial read of the article. -4vryng talk 03:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me as another !vote that this version is preferable to this version. It's cleaner and easier to navigate, and less bloated with tangential links. I feel the same about the related disputes, that the original versions were much better. Woodroar (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I view this state currently as compressed like a zip drive so yes its small in vertical scroll height but its not organized well enough and "clear" when looking for something specific such as when trying to reduce the read load to find a more "specific article" (its reading like a book at the moment which is not an effective way to find infomation). The best example I can give is as I have stated above in regards to the middle school kids doing research why the is better organized is the better layout -4vryng talk 17:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you agree the same for the Soviet Union-United States relations and Vladimir Putin navbox? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I meant about the "related disputes". Sorry, I could have been more clear! Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am refraining from reverting there given this users inability to listen and provide any proof for their claims. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you discussing, me? "Given this users inability to listen and provide any proof for their claims." I have alredy provided my proof above -4vryng talk 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to try to resolve this discussion (my edit screen shows: this block will expire on 17:50, 20 September 2025 for editing). We need more users involved in this conversation. If a solution is not found I will make a request for Dispute Resolution to hopefully come to a conclusion and we can move on. -4vryng talk 19:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have three users against the bloated version. More editors are not needed here. Move to close to keep to the current format and same on the other two templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this, if you do not want to take part in a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard then I will ask the other two users if they are interested. Having more opinions is great and that is what I was looking for, but I am not in agreement and I will not have this discussion closed because you want it closed - I am here to discuss it so we can all come to an agreement which means I am also in agreement. The whole point of this discussion is to get this issue resolved - not to simply close the case because there are two other users who gave their statements, I do not side with either one and this means a discussion continues - do you think I would stop this conversation if ten other people joined and they all sided with me? No of course not, if anyone is in disagreement then we need to work it out and come to an agreement, there is no rush for me to close this case. On a side note their reasoning is similar to yours, which is why this discussion continues because it did not create a solution - if their reasoning is similar to yours and I have indicated why I am not in agreement then I will continue with this discussion until we come to an agreement.-4vryng talk 05:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do yall think about a hybrid template design merging both designs together? We can merge the combine/design/layout to have a little bit both so both sides could be in agreement, this is where a Wikipedia:Sandbox comes into play. The simple compressed layout (kinda of like a Zip drive) as others suggested plus some of the organization/structural addon from the layout I had worked on. -4vryng talk 01:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Record Keeping/History

[edit]

Note: I made a mistake on how to actually perform the first dispute resolution, I forgot to message WikiCleanerMan's talk page (I did however have it on the template talk page), hence I made a second attempt by letting WikiClearnerMan know on his talk page and the template talk page but no response, and then third request on the incident page but user declined to start a new dispute resolution on the Dispute Resolution page so it could be done correctly - WikiCleanerMan wanted to do the resolution on the incident board which was not why I had created the incident request, it had been created to stop the reverts so we could do a dispute resolution on the Dispute Resolution page. -4vryng talk 04:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overtranscluded?

[edit]

Once the formatting issue above is resolved, someone might want to take a look at the transclusion report to ensure that this navbox complies with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to templates

[edit]

I'd like to restart the discussion about recent changes to two templates on international relations and one on Vladimir Putin. I hope that a clear consensus will emerge, but if not, perhaps the discussion will guide us towards an RfC on these templates. The main dispute is over versions A and B of these templates:

Russia–United States relations: Version A or Version B
Soviet Union–United States relations: Version A or Version B
Vladimir Putin: Version A or Version B

Some questions to consider: Is version A or B preferable, and why? Is this true for all three templates? Do you generally prefer one version but would change it? Do you dislike both versions? Are there any other issues we should discuss about these template versions? Woodroar (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4vryng, WikiCleanerMan, and Bgsu98: Pinging all editors who expressed an opinion in the earlier discussion. Woodroar (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the Soviet Union–United States templates are ridiculously long.
Neither of the Russia–United States templates are ideal, but version A is more concise. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for version A in all three templates. The A versions are shorter, cleaner, and easier to navigate. The B templates, on the other hand, are too long and filled with too many details, to the point where they are unnavigable.
If I had to critique the A templates, I would say that they could probably be trimmed. We should follow the guidance at WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use.
For what it's worth, I generally prefer the layout or style of version B, but only for templates with perhaps two or three dozen links and obvious categorization, as with a musician/band, author, or filmmaker. I don't think they work for these subjects, however. Woodroar (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Version A. No reasonable rationale has ever been given for Version B. Version A is simpler and is better to easily find articles of relevance without scrolling an article's worth. And Version A is easier to read. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. Both templates are too long and clunky to be helpful with navigation. In general, I prefer long templates with sub-divisions (like B) because it makes it easier for me to orient myself in the template, as opposed to a big wall of text that’s difficult to parse (like A), but Woodroar might be right about sub-divisions not working as well with this kinda subject.
Maybe breaking it out into multiple templates would help? Just a thought, really any kind of streamlining/trimming would probably be helpful. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Template B for all three templates. Yes I do acknowledge the templates have become larger in appearance when scrolling vertically, however the level of organization provided in Version B compared to Version A makes the update a huge improvements for all Wikipedia users using the template.

Version A is compressed like a zip drive so its small in vertical scroll height but its not organized well enough and "clear" when looking for something specific article (its reading like a book at the moment which is not an effective way to find information) - it compressed way too many links/information in too few sections making it harder for a person to find a specific topic. It felt like I was randomly trying to find an article in the many links that had been provided - giving it the feeling like your reading a book trying to find a topic that could have been better organized/structured to get right to the point.

  • Example 1: Look at the Template:Soviet Union–United States relations. Lets say a user is looking for a "policy" - maybe its a middle school student writing a paper for class but the student has no knowledge base on the subject or what links/articles/words to look for. In the old version how do they know which article to look at first given how the words are back-to-back in large numbers in few sections and its unclear which links are "policy" related - do you just click all the links and hope for the best? This can take a long time given all the links and this is not efficient. But with the current version it can now be easily found which you can check are: Containment, Détente, Linkage, Rollback, Stimson Doctrine [Welles Declaration], Triangular diplomacy, Zero Option.
  • Example 2: Try looking at the old version of the template and try to figuring out which links are policies. Much harder versus the current Template:Soviet Union–United States relations template right? The small amount of extra scrolling vertically in the new version is worth it and can save a person the troubles of trying to search through all those links in the older version; this small size difference should not be relevant given how big the change has been for those trying to search for something.
  • Example 3: Lets say you are trying to find info on Space. If you look at the old version you may have hard time trying to focus on links specifically on space because its not clear where to look first and which links are specifically on that subject matter (unless maybe the link has a space related term in it) versus the current version (Version B).

One thing to note in regards to the templates themselves when first viewing them on an article, the templates can be set to collapsed mode using the code {{Russia–United States relations|state=collapsed}} and {{Soviet Union–United States relations|state=collapsed}} - as shown on their template pages. This gives the user the option to expand it or keep it collapsed without having catch a users eyes during the initial read of the article.

For WP:NAVBOX: "....templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and us" - these two templates (Russia–United States and Soviet Union–United States Relations) would be a great case where this is not forbidden, and yes I agree Version B templates are larger in size versus Version A templates but I don't agree they are harder to read but instead I believe its the opposite and they have been made easier to read and find information. -4vryng talk 16:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

[edit]

We've had 10 days without comments, and it appears most editors prefer version A (the more "basic" navigation templates), but also most editors think those preferred templates are bloated with too much information. I have some suggestions on removing unnecessary links, but I'm interested in hearing any feedback—including alternate options of pruning them. Here are my thoughts:

Template:Russia–United States relations: I suggest removing all mid- and low-importance articles in the "Diplomatic posts", "Legislation", and "Treaties" sections, removing all low-importance posts in the "Diplomacy" and "Incidents" sections, and removing the "Related" section entirely. My rationale is that "Diplomacy" and "Incidents" are critical sections, at least critical enough to warrant a main article.
Template:Soviet Union–United States relations: As the largest and most bloated navigation template, I suggest removing all mid- and low-importance articles, and removing the "Related" section entirely.
Template:Vladimir Putin: As a biographical article of a president, I think we should keep the "Presidency" and "Family" sections. I also suggest changing "Political activities" to "Politics" and moving the Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin and Public image of Vladimir Putin links (not sections) under that heading, along with any high-importance articles in the "Domestic policy" section. My thoughts are that the "Foreign policy" and "Public image" sections are far too bloated, especially since all of those topics should (theoretically) be covered in their main articles.

Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any removal of sections and just simply restore back to versions before edit war and unnecessary changes to begin with. It was working just fine as is. "Diplomatic posts", "Legislation", and "Treaties" sections being called low importance will require something to back it up. And does violate any policy on navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]