Talk:Listenbourg

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Invention Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Available pictures on Commons Category:Listenbourg. -- Tukp (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its sensible content, this article may require special maintenance.
@DarkAudit: I reverted this disruptive edit, while the same IP vandalized at the same minute. Why did you restore the wrong version? Thanks Belbury, for the last update. Also pinging @Teiladnam: -- Tukp (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We were both trying to revert the same edit at the same time, and I hit my button a moment too late and got your edit by mistake. Sorry about that. DarkAudit (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then. Thank you for the explanation. It is the second disruptive edit I revert within a short period of time, and Belbury is helping too. -- Tukp (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should consider page protection if most IP edits to the article end up being removals of the word "fictional", but let's see how it goes. Belbury (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Belbury. It seems that 2 days were too short. I have requested a 3 month renewal of the protection. -- Tukp (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we got only 7 days, following these 2 days earlier. Unfortunately that's not enough. Thanks, Belbury, for your help to revert new disruptive edits. If further counterproductive contributions arise, we should seek further protection, again. -- Tukp (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear InterestGather, thanks for your interest in collaborating on this article. You're fighting against original researches, excellent. Your help is welcome here. But please, first take a look at the previous discussions, and also check the article history, before making controversial changes. This edit and the other ones you reverted aim to comply with {{Tone}}. What else do you propose? La Libre is a major daily newspaper in Belgium. Why would its content be unreliable? Read also the section Reliable sources on this page. We're far from WP:OR and there's a warning on WP:Huggle: "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle", so please use this tool carefully. If the algorithm detects a suspicious contribution, it doesn't mean that the suggestion is always right. You must verify first, and possibly discuss. -- Tukp (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for contacting me.

I seem to have made an error in attempting to revert one edit and all of your contributions in succession being reverted. Whilst I still believe that some of the edits you made may not be entirely valid under Original Research, you are making appropriate effort to ensure that the article is in a healthy state. I apologise for my overaction, under further inspection I can see you are making a valid attempt to work towards improving the article. Whilst I have been around for a while I still make mistakes and I have made changes to ensure this won't happen again.

I wish you good luck in your effort. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, InterestGather, for your understanding and constructive behavior. On a reciprocal respectful basis, I'm sure we can collaborate effectively. All the best, -- Tukp (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You can add site http://listenbourg.com 185.171.202.178 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As this site is just a picture of the flag and nothing else, it adds nothing. Cannolis (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently visited 542 times a day. This performance is higher than many other fictional countries and famous internet memes. Current events or influences from outside Wikipedia, probably. -- Tukp (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After one month this daily average has slightly increased, reaching 585 visits now. Probably the best way to enlighten readers about a misleading concept. -- Tukp (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article ? Mistyhands (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it meets WP:GNG having had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Belbury (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Tukp (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO ? Mistyhands (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRV -- Tukp (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough Mistyhands (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Tukp (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of sustained significance. A briefly viral hoax isn't encyclopedia worthy, no matter how many people commented on it. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is the independent coverage with hundreds of articles published in newspapers around the world. -- Tukp (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently using reliable sources to support its content. Verify for example NBC News, The Times, The New Zealand Herald and CNN have been validated by consensus. In foreign languages, Le Figaro, Television Française 1, France Info (TV channel), The Portugal News are all major daily newspapers or TV channels. A few other sources in English like Evening Standard or Insider are in yellow, which means they're not forbidden and "may be usable depending on context". If a particular source seems questionable to someone, the discussions are of course open. But for now, there is no "fake news" inserted in the description of this fiction. In line with WP:HOAX, we're contributing to an encyclopedic project. -- Tukp (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I would like to improve the article's style. And concurrently, declutter the header by removing the template {{Tone}}.

The users Mucube and JesseRafe have already provided some help in phrasing, recently. And I think the writing could adopt more encyclopedic codes in the second and third sections (Viral spread and Responses). Thus I'm going to try to ameliorate the wording. Please feel free to perfect these modifications, and to bring your own input, according to your expectations. Thanks. -- Tukp (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for the helping hand. Notably for the major contribution made by Belbury, much appreciated. Now I think the style has been improved significantly. If there is no objection, I will remove the template the next few days. -- Tukp (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any coverage about how this prank was actually receieved by its intended audience — in the U.S., and by the most “affected” local populations northwestern Spain and Portugal? Tuvalkin (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think so Lemurien321 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je veux mettre à jour la démographie du pays approuvée par le Président. Lemurien321 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please write in English and "out of character".

From what you've said on my talk page, you want to change the fictional population number that the press reported in 2022 to reflect later fan worldbuilding on various Discords, and the Twitter user who posted the original meme approves of you doing so? Belbury (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes excuse me for the language. It is not later given that no official data has ever been given (I searched carefully and I did not even find this demographic figure in the tweet) the figure that I wanted to put sticks to the set of arrangements made by the entire community and by its creator officially some joyrd barely after the start of listenbourg Lemurien321 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Consider changing "Adrias" to "Adriàs" throughout the whole page. TheRedactedDumpster (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change « an other user » by the real @ of this user : « @EwenSgr » 2A04:CEC0:121A:268C:2032:AC67:A62F:4D4B (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the currently cited sources only refer to "another user" or say that "a reply came instantly", they don't mention a username. --Belbury (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't know if this would enter the article since I cannot point to an external source, it is interesting to note that the map of Listenbourg is a mirrored, rotated and slightly distorted map of the Brazilian state of Bahia. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahia#/media/Ficheiro:Bahia_in_Brazil.svg 177.193.212.66 (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix the spelling of Fluẞerde to Flußerde in the "Locations" section of the infobox (the eszett should not be capitalized as it is not in any other part of this page) GiggyMantis (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - thank you and merry Christmas! ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:NineOnLB has removed this image a few times as not really relevant to the meme at hand, noting that there's a wikiproject to remove ai images from wikipedia. im sticking with that. They've also removed the in-article text of

It was noted that the DALL-E artificial intelligence program generated European-style buildings when given the word "Listenbourg" as a prompt.

The AI Cleanup project (which I'm a member of) is to "ensure appropriate usage" of AI-generated images, particularly those where it's not obvious to the reader that the image is an AI one. It's not a project to simply remove all AI-generated images on sight.

Like the removed text says, the DALL-E usage was noted by a published source. That seems like a useful historical snapshot of a 2022 meme, that people considered an AI-generated image to be worth remarking on rather than commonplace, and that there was some interest in AI image generators of the time being able to get a vibe for what something called "Listenbourg" might look like. That kind of detail seems a small but useful footnote in the overall history of Internet group fiction (eg. compared to Goncharov a month later, which doesn't record any interest in AI renditions). Belbury (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the WikiProject ACTUALLY wants to remove AI-Generated images when not appropriate to the article, which it very much is not here.

This article is NOT about the internet culture of 2022 OR about DALL-E image generation. It is ONE sentence and one additional image to an article that already has too many images, for a reason that is not completely needed and with only a single source added to it. There is absolutely NO reason to keep it included on the page, as it just is not relevant to the image. Should every 2022 movie have a DALL-E image representation of the movie? No, that's absurd. Stop adding it back, it's completely unneccessary and irrelevant.

Literally no one but YOU cares about what DALL-E image generation thought/thinks about Listenbourg. No one who comes to this article for information on Listenbourg is going to see it as relevant or helpful. NineOnLB (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tukp agreed with my rationale when restoring it. Whoever added the sentence in the first place thought it was worth mentioning. Thomas Bywater of the cited New Zealand Herald artice thought it was worth mentioning.

You don't think that an article about Listenbourg is about the internet culture of 2022? Belbury (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's about a meme in 2022. Not the internet culture as a whole. The meme did not revolve around an AI-Generated image, either. So one article mentioning one internet trend with another doesn't make it relevant to the original meme. In the article from the NZH, it is ONLY two sentences and only included as to be "it sounds European enough that it fools AI." That does NOT make it relevant or essential to a wikipedia article covering it. NineOnLB (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the newspaper sees fit to mention this element in order to justify the notoriety of the concept at the time of its creation, our role here at Wikipedia is not to sort what is AI / not AI in the publication, but to report on the reliable content. And no other source is there to dispute this objective data. Not only does the newspaper report on it, but the illustration itself is published. Moreover, yes, as stated in my summary, I agree with Belbury. Useful historical snapshot of a 2022 meme. -- Tukp (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unfortunately, this is not at all relevant to the meme and the two sentences mentioned in one article from the New Zealand Herald does not change that fact. There is not a single other source mentioning a shitty AI image. This is not useful to anyone checking the article. Anyone who checks the article and sees AI art for no reason included will be at best, confused, and at worst, angry at wikipedia. NineOnLB (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images

Check out this article that gives information on when images are relevant. Specifically, it says that each image should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an IMPORTANT ILLUSTRATIVE AID TO UNDERSTANDING (which the AI generated image DOES NOT DO). It ALSO says that too many images can be distracting and in general, less is more. In this article, there are already FIVE images (the fiction country map, the fictional flag, the five regions map, the image of the subway, and the image of the hoax sign), so many images that it already goes into the references part of the article. That is an ABSURD amount of images for an article this short and about this unimportant an article. Adding ANOTHER image based off of TWO SENTENCES in a SINGLE SOURCE where the main point of inclusion in the source is to emphasize how the name is realistic for a European nation is ABSURD. Use your critical thinking skills here, if you do have any. NineOnLB (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologize as THERE ARE ACTUALLY SIX IMAGES. There is a THIRD map picture, with that one showing Europe with and without Listenbourg. NineOnLB (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Belbury for the thread. I also think that AI Cleanup project's goal is not to censor all information related to AI but to improve writing. Besides, this paragraph has been here since 2022. Please leave it as is. -- Tukp (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "censorship", you fool. Also, something being present for years doesn't mean it should stay present. It still is not relevant to the meme. NineOnLB (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the goal of the project is to check whether AI-generated content is suitable, not to remove it on sight. In this case, I am not strongly convinced, mostly because of the already high ratio of pictures to text. Another factor is that this specific image was only used in one source for illustrative purposes, rather than being the subject of secondary commentary like the metro station one.

Right now, I would lean towards removing it, although I could easily be convinced otherwise if this image has been used beyond the one article for which it was generated, or if it is representative of a wider trend of AI-generated Listenbourg images. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I sincerely regret the unpleasant behavior of user User:NineOnLB. Unacceptable insults, aggressive and explicitly derogatory remarks in summary and talk page ("idiot", "use your brain for the first time in your life", "you fool"). It's very sad. See WP:CIVIL: "Don't make snide comments." This significantly disrupts the collegial and relaxed atmosphere of the Wikipedia project.

I would like to suggest to this user to find another distraction and possibly ceases all participation for this article in which they are clearly not at all interested. To date, there are only four contributions from this person. The first one three days ago. 1, 2, 3, 4. And always the same (contested) edit. We are not here to wage war but to develop an article using available sources. Kind regards. -- Tukp (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to suggest to you to cease all participation in this article as you clearly are only interested in making it worse. Kind regards. NineOnLB (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This assumption is not a constructive way to address the issue, and could be understood as casting aspersions on a fellow editor just because of a disagreement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NineOnLB has now removed all images from the article except for the simple infobox map, describing them as "fluff" and saying that they "aren't neccessary to the article".

I think an article about a meme benefits from examples of the kinds of thing that people were doing with it, particularly when two of them were images posted by official bodies joining in on the joke, something which is described prominently in the article text. The "five regions" is a useful example of the kind of worldbuilding that people were doing. The before/after map of Europe seems useful given that the whole point of the meme is that people outside of mainland Europe might not be familiar with the coastline.

I've restored the images. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Tukp (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NineOnLB's actions

Edits	Remarks	Reverts
1st		restored by Belbury (with polite and rational justification)
2nd	Again.	restored by Tukp
3rd	Again. WP:3RR	restored by Tukp
4th, 5th, 6th	Again. WP:4RR + personal attacks ("idiot").	restored by Thegoofhere
7th	Again + "all others are fluff"	restored by Belbury

This user is clearly not here to contribute constructively.

This is a behavior NineOnLB repeats, despite the very clear warnings on various pages sent by various participants.

Multiple messages have been left on their talk page:

1. Edit warring (left by GSK). Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Note: "wiped page".
2. Edit warring (left by Belbury) Note: NineOnLB says "I was within the three revert rule with my reverts", suggesting that no lessons have been learned.
3. No personal attacks (left by Belbury). Note: Blanked the page.
4. No escaping from ye past (reminder by Thegoofhere).

Read WP:3RR and WP:4RR: "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page."

Read also Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, disruptive to the work of building an encyclopedia, and editors engaging in such behaviour, may be sanctioned, including, but not limited to being blocked."

Now enough. (Redacted) The behavior is clearly hostile. Attacking other participants, refusing to listen to divergent points of view, making wrong analysis, and remaining obtuse, tirelessly repeating the same errors.

It's all the more strange that NineOnLB claims this opportunist group Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup where Belbury has been registered for the past two months, and the other hasn't.

We have enough maintenance work with regular vandals trying to twist the article content to make it look like it's about a real country, so please no need for further inconvenience. -- Tukp (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of concern should be raised at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI rather than the article talk page. I'll certainly raise an ANEW report myself if it continues. Belbury (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking me up on twitter is (Personal attack removed). Get help. I'll leave the article alone. NineOnLB (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the need to research him at twitter Thegoofhere (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speculatively researching an editor on social media isn't appropriate, I'm redacting that. --Belbury (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. IzzySwag (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMONAME. -- Tukp (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was still a violation of WP:OUTING. IzzySwag (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of past protections

Protections (Chronology)	Performer	End
2 December 2022	BusterD	4 December 2022
11 December 2022	Daniel Case	18 December 2022
22 December 2022	BusterD	5 January 2023
20 July 2024	Isabelle Belato	20 July 2025

-- Tukp (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to present my case for why some images from this article should be removed in a more respectful, courteous manner while taking open feedback and offering compromises. I'd like to invite User:Tukp and User:Belbury to respond to these as they seem to be the main people maintaining this article. I understand my past behavior has not been respectful but I hope my change in attitude here will allow my thoughts to be heard out.

I will be going off of the Wikipedia Manual of Style on Images for my rationale for most of these and will take each image one at a time.

Image one of seven being the map of Europe including the country of Listenbourg I believe is one we should keep or replace with another (will get to later). The flag I am going back and forth on if it should be included as it was not from the original meme or, to my knowledge, by author of the original tweet. However, if both of you (or whatever third party sees this) believe it is necessary to the article, I will concede to its addition.

Image 3 of 7 is the first one I believe should be removed. The first map image already shows Listenbourg in its place in Europe and any person who reads this article will already know what Europe will look like without it present. There is no need to have this in the article and it serves mostly as decorative, in my opinion. As per the encyclopedic purpose of images as mentioned in MoS, it does not belong in the article as it does not improve comprehension and serves no vaigational function.

The fourth image, the one showing the five regions of Listenbourg is one I believe we should also cut. However, I do think we could replace the first image with this one, depending on if we believe the regions' location is essential to the article. There being two images of the map feels unneccessary and I think we should either include one with regions or without.

The fifth image, the one of AI generated images, I believe should also be cut. It does not approve any additional information, it does not serve as an important illustrative aid to the general concept of Listenbourg, and it adds to the overwhelming number of images already present in the article. A trend of AI-generated Listenbourg images was not present and the image is only in one article. User:Chaotic_Enby's reasoning was well put and I believe it should also be removed. In my previous edits of this article, I removed the mention of AI in the viral spread section, but I'd be willing to keep that section now.

The last two images I will cover together as I believe both serve a purpose in the article, that is to show the response of it being faked/edited into real life as part of the meme. However, that purpose is served by both images and I think one of them should be cut for that reason. You don't really need two images that serve the same purpose.

There is currently one removed image, one I removed a little bit before this talk message of a screencapture of the original tweet. I think that is the most unneeded image in the article, as the tweet is already covered in the article, the map included in it is also already shown in other maps present in the article, and the tweet remains untranslated. This is the English wikipedia so the different language, without translation on the image, would likely confuse most readers. The information in that image is also present in the article already and nothing additional is gained from the visual version of it. Also, it would be the eighth image in this article, which already has too many.

The Manual of Style suggests the idea that less is more in terms of images and 7 images that stretch all the way to the bottom of the page is clearly too many images. I hope you can now see my reasoning on the removal of images from this article and am excited to resolve this more respectfully than last time with you. IzzySwag (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Izzyswag. Glad you're welcome to a respectful debate. I do agree with your point on the AI images, I think they're just bad representations of Listenbourg. Same with the signs. Though, I think the region map does a great job at visually showing the subdivisions of Listenbourg, and subdivisions themselves are made because for political, geographical, and historical reasons. So it pretty much shows an indirect glimpse at Listenbourg's culture Thegoofhere (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

any person who reads this article will already know what Europe will look like without it present - the whole point of the meme is that people outside mainland Europe may not know exactly what its coastline looks like.

the one showing the five regions of Listenbourg is one I believe we should also cut - this is a good example of the kind of worldbuilding that people were doing, and which the article describes. It shows that the joke went beyond just the original image and into more detailed fiction.

being faked/edited into real life as part of the meme [...] is served by both images and I think one of them should be cut for that reason - agreed that there's not much difference in context between a state-owned rail company and a town council joining in the joke. The La Clusaz photo seems like the better example of the two, to me. Belbury (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is if we keep three maps, it would be too many maps that cover pretty similar information. The main map image in the information box already shows where the fictional country tacks onto Europe and I feel the additional map does not really add anything new to the understanding. The first image map is somewhat zoomed out as well, giving a scope of Europe and where the country is on the map of Europe. People will be able to visualize the country being gone from the coastline easily without an additional image explaining it. IzzySwag (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, the side-by-side comparison of Europe is probably fluff. Thegoofhere (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the joke is "Americans generally don't know what the southwest coastline of Europe really looks like" and there's some truth in that, it seems useful to include what that coastline really looks like, and how much of Spain has been covered.

If this was an equivalent joke about a fake US state attached to Florida, I'd want to check a real map of Florida to understand how much I'd been fooled by it, and to get context on just how ridiculous the joke would seem to a US resident.

Maybe the side-by-side comparison should be the infobox image. Belbury (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be open to having the side-by-side comparison in the infobox, that might actually be the best result here. Good thinking. IzzySwag (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced either. 1) I don't see any good reasons above to remove the images, 2) The article is about a visual, 3) It's a chance here to have a large number of illustrations under free license, we must take advantage of it, 4) There is also a {{Gallery}} template, available on Wikipedia, 5) In this case, "picture tells a story better than words". -- Tukp (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the others are in agreement here, though. You seem the be the only outlier. Most of the pictures here have been agreed to not be useful to the article. I think a consensus has been made but if you want, I could reach out for dispute resolution. IzzySwag (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to reply to your specific points. The article is not about a visual, it is about a fictional country. Having a large number of pictures just for the sake of having a large number of picutres doesn't make a lot of sense and also goes against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The gallery template was not implemented here and if you want to try implementing it, I would be open to seeing how it looks in article! A picture sometimes tells a story better than words, but wikipedia is an encylopedia. You are supposed to write, not show images for everything. IzzySwag (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to write: It's easier to criticize than create. It's not as if this article is too long and needs to be shortened. Many sources have mentioned the RATP's fake and the emblem. It seems counterproductive to me to remove these images which perfectly illustrate the content, and make the article more interesting. I don't see a firm consensus among the 4 participants. At the origin, Listebourg is "the subject of an internet meme": a visual meme, yes. -- Tukp (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the images need to have a reason to exist in the article, having too many goes against MoS and just because something is mentioned multiple times in sources does not mean it should be in article. Also see WP:NOTGALLERY. IzzySwag (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMG: "When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." I would also tend to recommend to someone who seems to have absolutely no experience with images, i.e., has never uploaded any illustrations to Wikipedia, not to get too involved in this area, which they probably know little about. The header image File:Fictional country Listenbourg map.svg has the advantage of offering a very clear contrast to the eye, and a perfect scale, while the alternative File:Europe with and without Listenbourg fictional country.svg has a dotted outline and a semi-transparent background that makes the subject less obvious. User:Belbury, you are an experienced and long-time contributor, what do you think? -- Tukp (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMG: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding."

"However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting: usually, less is more."

Every other sentence in the MoS goes against 7 images in this article. My experience with uploading images also has nothing to do with my editing of articles, as well. I think what makes up for the lack of the base map is the inclusion of the map with the regions, which shows the clear outline while also providing the additional information of the regions of the country. IzzySwag (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you read the full discussion, you'd know that Belbury suggested the comparision image be replace the one standard map image in the infobox. IzzySwag (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read Belbury above, "I think an article about a meme benefits from examples of the kinds of thing that people were doing with it, particularly when two of them were images posted by official bodies joining in on the joke, something which is described prominently in the article text", it's something else, with which I agree. I also have confidence in their ability to listen to arguments and move the article forward in the right direction. File:Photomontage metro station Listenbourg - derivative work.jpg is not "decorative". It's an original prank shared by the official RATP Group, reported by major channels such as France Info, and directly related to the topic in its specific section. -- Tukp (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also from Belbury: "agreed that there's not much difference in context between a state-owned rail company and a town council joining in the joke. The La Clusaz photo seems like the better example of the two, to me." on the metro station and La Clusaz pictures. IzzySwag (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]