Talk:Baltic Sea

Requested move 4 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW, based on an apparent misunderstanding (non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Baltic Sea → Mya Sea – It is both wrong and outdated to call it the Baltic sea when the proper name for it is the Mya Sea as can be seen in the Polish wikipedia for that is the name the sea obtains after it changed its form many years ago and thats how it will remain until a new change comes about, right now the article doesnt even mention this FACT and as such it should be corrected as soon as possible, here is the Polish article for it https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morze_Mya CaptainAugus (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Station1 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Polish Wikipedia is not an authority, here, on the English Wikipedia. This isn't even a Polish-specific entry. Mya Sea does not even exist as a redirect. It is not the WP:COMMONNAME and the grounds for changing this well-known term to it are beyond spurious. I don't want to be overly hasrh, but the fact that the proposer thought that this would be in any way an uncontroversial request illustrates the level of detachment here. El_C 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SNOW.Tammbeck^Talk 10:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose agreeing this is a WP:SNOW. I only found a single mention of "Mya Sea", here, and that is a single use in a book about the Baltic Sea. Seems to be more reference to the stage either below or around the body of water itself, I guess? Definitely not my field, but the term seems obscure in English sources. -2pou (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is, its the stage the sea is right now, its the Mya Sea and should at least be referred to as such even if you insist on keeping the outdated name of Baltic sea (Which on an unrelated note sounds much worse than Mya Sea) since its really important information, the fact that an entry for it doesnt exist for the english wikipedia does nothing but show how lacking is this wikipedia in knowledge about that sea, also I find it funny that you complain about the uncontroversial request when you were the one to specifically link me to that section CaptainAugus (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Who are you speaking to? El_C 11:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. An ngram seems unnecessary, but here it is. Allan Rice (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Mya Sea is most definitely not the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. That would be the original title of this article, the Baltic Sea. Henry20090 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok but hear me out, it sounds way cooler doesnt it? CaptainAugus (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: That's your opinion, I'm arguing based on policy. Henry20090 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Polish name for this sea is Morze Bałtyckie. As 2pou mentions, Mya is an obscure name for a historical stage of the sea. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Belte inter.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Name in other languages

I noticed that my recent edit organising the list of Slavic names was reverted with a comment "Why is this necessary..?" I wanted to explain the reasoning behind the change, as it was intended to improve the article's structure in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and the policy of Due Weight.

The previous list of translations appeared to be in a random sequence. This makes it difficult for a reader to find a specific language and presents the information in a way that feels unorganised for an encyclopaedia.

My edit structured the list based on established linguistic principles:

Grouping: By the three major branches of Slavic languages (Western, Eastern, Southern).

Sorting: Alphabetically by language name within each group.

This approach provides a clear, logical, and verifiable structure. It follows the guideline in the Manual of Style's Organization section (MOS:LISTORG), which states that while lists may be organized in different ways, "they must always be organized" and the criteria for categorization must be "clear and consistent".

Furthermore, one also has to somewhat apply primacy to the items of in the list based on relevance: My order more than the previous one prioritises languages spoken in countries with a coastline on the Baltic Sea or situated within the region. This aligns with the core Wikipedia policy of Due Weight (WP:DUE), which dictates that information should be presented in proportion to its prominence. Languages with a direct geographical connection to the sea are clearly more prominent in this context. The current structure ensures, for example, that a primary language like Russian (Russia having a long coastline along the Baltic Sea) is not listed after a geographically distant ones like Slovenian and Ukrainian (languages spoken in countries situated hundreds of miles away from the subject of the article).

Organizing the translations this way makes the information more accessible to readers and gives the article a more professional, encyclopaedic feel.

I hope this clarifies the purpose of the edit. --82.32.183.231 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

List of islands in the infobox

To me the current listing appears quite bloated. As there is a link to a list article right there, maybe it'd be better to include just the biggest islands and archipelagos. Soulful potato (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Such long lists are probably managed best by a collapsible list otherwise information is lost and for example islands importance strategically is not determined by size- see {{Collapsible list}} ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought about mentioning strategic and historical importance too but got caught in the trap of ughh how to write this eloquently. Anyway, personally I'm not that bothered by the visual length of the list but rather that it feels like the most relevant information is harder to gather from it. Soulful potato (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Formatting the infobox for page design neatness so pictures align better with relevant text in browser view is then a better goal by changing all the long lists ie Primary inflows, Basin countries,Islands and Settlements into collapsible lists. Will do it myself if no further talk debate after a week. ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)