Talk:United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removal of well-sourced information

@KastusK: Please do not remove well-sourced information from this article. You are welcome to add sourced information. See also WP:VERIFIABILITY.

In general, government cabinet articles suffer from Wikipedians' well-intentioned desire to "keep them current", while forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. The history of how a cabinet evolves is as important for, if not more important than, understanding the topic as knowing the "current" status. It's possible to separate "current" and "historical" cabinet tables if there are enough people maintaining them properly - but then someone has to be willing to do that editing work. Boud (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the |rowspan="2" parameter to see how the former and current defence representatives are grouped together. Boud (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information (again)

@KastusK: This edit

removed sourced information,
changed September 2022–present to August 2024–present without a source nor explanation of why reference "1stEPC_summit_Astapenko" might be dubious,
made it appear that Astapenka holds the same double roles Deputy Head and Representative for Foreign Affairs as Kavaleuski,
introduced a reference from Facebook, which is a generally unreliable source per current community consensus: WP:RSPFACEBOOK.

Please try to take care in sourcing - see WP:VERIFIABILITY - thanks. Boud (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List-defined references

This article uses some list-defined references, which means some footnotes can also be defined within the reference section/list, and then invoked in the page content. This keeps those citations in one central location for easier maintenance and avoids cluttering the text. All references defined in the reference list must be invoked in page content. If an editor removes a list-defined reference from the body of the article, then unused references must be removed or commented out.

During my routine clean up of pages with incorrect ref formatting, this article and cite error → A list-defined reference named "1stEPC_summit_Astapenko" is not used in the content was listed at pages with incorrect ref formatting. Per the instructions at the help page, the list-defined reference was removed to resolve the cite error. In the future, editors at this article should use Show preview, to help prevent cite errors, and clogging up pages with incorrect ref formatting, which frequently has a backlog of simple to fix cite errors such as this one. Please also take a gander at That's why we preview, kids. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at H:CERMK do not override the content requirements of an article. If material is unwisely removed, leaving uncited references in place, then that is often a clue that notable material has been removed and should be restored, not that the reference should be removed. First ask yourself why the citation was removed: was it a good editing choice? Make your decision based on the content of the article, not just technical citation matching. Boud (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable about the 'public team members'?

The Public Team Members introduced here don't seem notable enough to have their own section. We don't have any sources expect for the revivalbelarus.org website's own web page. The Deputy Representative is reasonable in the Cabinet table, but adding the Information Policy Advisor is excessive. This is not a publicity page for the UTC - it's an encyclopedia page. I merged the deputy representative and removed the information policy advisor. Feel free to add sources if one or the other are notable for their role in the Cabinet. Boud (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to include anyone on this list other than current and former 'ministers.' The roles and activities of Artsiom Proskalovich, Yury Gubarevich, and Pavel Barkouski within the cabinet are not well documented, not only in English-language sources but also in Russian- and Belarusian-language media. MocnyDuham (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also true that all three are currently red-linked.

Does anyone object to removing the three people who are only deputy 'ministers' (representatives)? The info will still be in the edit history, and recoverable if their roles become notable later or if editing consensus later changes. Boud (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]