Talk:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

Jetysui Governorate

I cannot find this even on a websearch - is there a better transliteration?

And should 'Sunzha Cossack district' be directed to Sunzhensky District, Republic of Ingushetia or is it 'a distinct historical entity'? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

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

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)

Government infobox

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)

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)

I can’t find what you’re talking about WildRaptor777 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content" (MOS:IBP). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And having the info I provided isn’t unnecessary WildRaptor777 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neither has yours WildRaptor777 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is considering the long and changing history of the soviet government WildRaptor777 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Multiple? It only you, no one else but you has objected. WildRaptor777 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)