Talk:Russia–South Ossetia relations
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | A fact from Russia–South Ossetia relations appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POV
editSouth Ossetia is still considered internationally a part of the Republic of Georgia, and Georgia considers the region under the Russian occupation. the article completely bypasses such facts. This needs to be fixed.--Termer (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is stated as such in the article, read it, hence this is just a continuation of the disruptive AfD which you began. --Russavia Dialogue 04:43, 13 August 2009
(UTC)
Please read WP:Lead The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. And which part exactly about Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved is not clear enough?--Termer (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about the relations between Russia and South Ossetia. What the EU or Georgia think of South Ossetia's status is not very relevant here. This material belongs to some other article. Offliner (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree, the views are relevant to the article about Russia and its puppet state "relations".--Termer (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's irrelevant, as per the precedent set by the US-Kosovo relations article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations. Serbia considers Kosovo, especially North Kosovo, part of Serbia, and so do most nations, 53 out of 192 isn't a top-notch score. Either change the US-Kosovo relations article, or leave this one alone. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is there a reason for the NPOV tag? Óðinn ☭☆ talk 18:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Same countries cited several times
editThe European Union is cited twice, as European Union and as Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Additionally these are all part of NATO. The US is cited twice, as NATO and US. Yes, NATO doesn't like NATO-trained army being defeated and others taking advantage of that defeat, we get it, but is it necessary to cite a country, like the UK, three times? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
