Jump to content

Talk:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17 § Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208) until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 08:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government infobox

[edit]

The current info box for the government is too simple and doesn't properly showcase the type of government in the rsfsr. Adding more details (like I previously did) would fix this issue WildRaptor777 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:IBP, information is meant to be presented in a short format; if you compare the examples in the template documentation for former countries, that's consistent there. The article text exists to provide a more fulsome explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t find what you’re talking about WildRaptor777 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content" (MOS:IBP). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And having the info I provided isn’t unnecessary WildRaptor777 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your proposal contains more detail than the actual article it's meant to be summarizing, that doesn't seem to be accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t, don't lie now. It had a standard amount of info. It’s informative and sensible. The government was always the two forms listed as of right now. WildRaptor777 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is listed as of right now is much more sensible than what you had proposed to list. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my post above, I meant wasn’t btw. On to your post: it absolutely is not WildRaptor777 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly welcome to your opinion on that, but at this point your proposed approach hasn't attained consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither has yours WildRaptor777 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, based on your talkpage, that Remsense and I are in agreement that your approach of "stuffing as much detail as possible" is problematic, and also generating a sea of blue (as you are doing elsewhere as well). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't “stuff as much detail as possible”, I put a normal amount of text that properly describes what the form of governments are. You and Remsense have the same problem: You both try to minimize and reduce as much as possible in a way that excludes too much detail and decreases article quality. WildRaptor777 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're proposing is not a "normal amount of text" for this context, and is not consistent with the relevant guidelines. I'd suggest focusing your efforts on improvement of Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic#Government to reflect that level of detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is considering the long and changing history of the soviet government WildRaptor777 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a level of detail that is better explored in the article text, which is why I suggested you focus on explaining it there. I appreciate that you don't agree, but please don't restore the disputed material without getting consensus to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WildRaptor777: I see that you have restored the disputed content again - please self-revert until you obtain consensus for this change. This edit is inconsistent with MOS:IBP and MOS:SOB, presenting detail that currently doesn't exist in the article body and would be better discussed there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this consensus hasn't gone anywhere because it is literally just you and me talking. I'm not moving from my postion that my edit is correct because yours is just plain wrong and oversimplified. WildRaptor777 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you prefer your version, but that doesn't allow you to edit-war it in over the objections of multiple editors. The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content to gain consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple? It only you, no one else but you has objected. WildRaptor777 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were previously edit-warring with User:Remsense over a larger set of changes that included this parameter, then again with me, received warnings from both of us, and now you've again restored it, without obtaining consensus for your position. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is too convoluted. The rest of the article should explain this in more detail instead. Mellk (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ErickTheMerrick, you have been told in one form or another several times that it is not a "normal amount of info"—not to mention you are still overlinking without any consideration for WP:SOB. It is an amount of info that is not helpful for readers when presented in such a manner, as distinguished from serving to sate the completionism of editors who do not need an introduction to the subject. As previously stated here, it is material to be dealt with in prose where it can actually be explained. Remsense ‥ 论 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but its just not enough info on the page. What I added was more accurate and is infact helpful for readers as it shows that the government wasn't only in the two forms stated as of right now. For example, it was multi-party during some of the early years under Lenin, and a one-party state after the ban of all other parties later. Then during the twilight years of the republic, ot shifted from a parliamentary republic, to a semi-presidential republic with the inauguration of Boris Yeltin as president of the RSFSR. Leaving out these details is frankly stupid and does nothing but degrade the quality of the wiki page. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These details should be added in the article text, as Mellk suggested. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, this level of detail is appropriate only for the body. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well how you have it now doesn't even include that it was a one party system ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2025

[edit]
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic → Soviet Russia – Like Ba'athist Iraq, Pahlavi Iran and Ba'athist Syria, renaming this article to Soviet Russia per WP:COMMONNAME is to keep the historical name of the Russian state short. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose, since that term is too often conflated for the USSR at large. Remsense ‥ 论 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose soviet russia is used to refer to the ussr as a whole—blindlynx 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, per a 2020 RFD, this article is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry i had no idea, but based on how this RM is going it may be worth revisiting—blindlynx 15:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The conflation of Soviet Russia with the Soviet Union is far too common, particularly in older sources (similar terms like Red China, White Russia, etc.). The status quo of the a redirect with a hatnote directing readers to the Soviet Union is the most appropriate choice. It's also consistent with the other republics' articles, and I don't see a benefit to moving those articles either because some soviets predated the Soviet Union and the current titles are the most clear. Yue🌙 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Soviet Russia (Russian: Советская Россия) is a vague term even in Russia: it can refer to the Russian SFSR and the Soviet Union; it also was used as a name for a gazette and print house. It will confuse a reader who isn't familiar with Soviet politics. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic is the perfect name for the article, as it stresses the difference from the Soviet Union and also uses the historical Russian name. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per others. It does seem ill-advised. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Mellk (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- (strong) -- First off, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not an argument. I would actually argue against at least one of the article titles you cited, anyways (Pahlavi Iran), so that argument is lost on me. Citing COMMONNAME isn't going to do any favors, either, as it would probably favor just "Russia." Speaking of which, that is probably the strongest justification for the other two article names you cited, Ba'athist Iraq and Ba'athist Syria; they exist as quick disambiguators. Otherwise Republic of Iraq (the official name of Ba'athist Iraq) goes to modern Iraq and Syrian Arab Republic (the official name of Ba'athist Syria) goes to... you guessed it, modern Syria.
    (And, as I said, I would support re-naming Pahlavi Iran to 'Imperial Iran,' or something similar... I have never heard it called 'Pahlavi Iran,' but I digress)
    I do think that the argument of "people conflate 'Soviet Russia' with the 'USSR'" is rather weak, as it is not Wikipedia's job to police or interpolate knowledge. However, in that same vein, I believe the RFSR's title is important. This is roughly equivalent to wanting to re-title "Massachusetts" to "Mass" or "United States of America" to "America."MWFwiki (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The current title is a natural disambiguation. If there is ambiguity with a term, then there is no benefit to moving an article to the ambiguous title, especially if it isn't the common name or primary topic. Yue🌙 04:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — There are no issues with the present title, which unambiguously refers to a single political entity. "Soviet Russia", on the contrary, is often misused in Western media to refer pars pro toto to the Soviet Union. Renaming the title to this would simply introduce confusion, not to mention be incongruent with the naming of the other Union Republics (e.g. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic). SociusMono1976 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic&oldid=1270266134"