User talk:TylerBurden

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 1.5 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Where should I put this

Hello, I just wanted some advise on where I should put Stephen Charlton's comments about what he describes as "reclassified losses"? Should it be put in the article of the unit he served in (the 2nd International Legion), the International Legion or Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war article?

Article link -> Why dismantling Ukraine’s International Legion risks wasting experienced volunteers / The New Voice of Ukraine Lazarbeem (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazarbeem It would depend what the context is for that portion, by the sound of it it's the 2nd. TylerBurden (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

does that mean that if an article says something elsewhere you can put it in the head as well? i couldnt find anything for or against ~2026-11244-58 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-11244-58 The "head" is meant to be a summary of the article body (the rest of the article), as it says in WP:LEAD: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." TylerBurden (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

understood ~2026-11244-58 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Armed Forces

Hi TylerBurden. I think combat experience gained by Russians from the Russo-Ukrainian war is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead as this combat experience will be significant in a future war with the NATO or the Europe, even if President Putin and other Russian officials are claiming that they have no intention of starting a war with the Eastern Europe for now. If you do not object, can you help to mention it in the body of article and restore it in the lead. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu Kannan Hello, I don't know if a single source would be enough for the WP:LEAD, but feel free to introduce it to a relevant body section where there would at the very least be a base for it. TylerBurden (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recent revert

Perhaps I'm just entirely misunderstanding something here, and in that case forgive me (I'm still inexperienced), but I thought that when WP:GEOLINK says this:

If the smallest unit is an extant place, but the largest is not, it is preferable to space the links out when feasible, e.g. Kumrovec, then part of Austria-Hungary (Kumrovec, then part of Austria-Hungary).

It is an implicit acknowledgement that we should be linking to non-extent places? If not, then what is the point of the above section being included in the guide line? Kind regards, ―Maltazarian ^{(talk $\lor$ investigate)} 15:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't WP:GEOLINK also mean that the Estonian SSR if extant places aren't an exception? ―Maltazarian ^{(talk $\lor$ investigate)} 15:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maltazarian Neither place "exists" anymore, but even ignoring that specific guideline, I'd say that a link to the Estonian SSR would be far mor likely to be useful to a reader than a link to the Soviet Union, which is arguably a WP:OVERLINK. TylerBurden (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could argue that, but the common practice is to link the Soviet Union in these bios. I checked a bunch of articles on Estonians before I wikilinked it and they're all doing it, and while that doesn't mean it's correct and you're free to go change it on all of them too, I would at least like consistency between identical infobox entries. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk $\lor$ investigate)} 16:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like Wikipedia to be perfect, unfortunately it's never going to be. As far as I see there is no consensus specifically regarding linking to the Soviet Union, so if a bunch of articles on Estonians have it then it has been boldly implemented and as you say can be just as boldly be reverted, if one has time to look through all articles on Estonians.

Maybe it is something that could be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles to establish a standard? TylerBurden (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RFC regarding this here: Wikipedia:VPM#RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question LordCollaboration (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, even this has to have an RfC? I'll just leave it alone at that point honestly. It's not worth the energy. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk $\lor$ investigate)} 21:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in Åland

Why shouldn't there be a link to Regions of Finland in the lead section of Åland? There is a similar link in all other articles of Finnish regions, such as Uusimaa, Central Ostrobothnia, Päijät-Häme, etc. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 15:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I didn't realise there is a link in the very next sentence. My bad. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 15:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! TylerBurden (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]