Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Russia (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Category:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2016; 12:47 (UTC)

equal marriages Romanov Bagration .[edit]

When Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna , daughter of G-D Konstantine Konstantinovich, obtained the consent of her father to marry Konstantine Bagration and of course the blessing of HIM Nicholas II, she signed an official renouncement to their future children's rights, and that was BEFORE the abdication of the Romanov dynasty. So did her niece Ekaterina Ioannovna, princess of the Imperial Blood, in the late thirties, when she married Ruggero, marchese (in italian, or marquess, it means the same,) Farace di Villaforesta, for their children. Neither of these children : Nicoletta, Fiammetta and Ivan Farace ever considered themselves as heirs.... but Ivan, now marchese Farace di Villaforesta, is an active honorary member of the Family Association since his mother passed away in 2007. Like HM the King of Greece, Prince Michael of Kent, and other members of the Family, not necessCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).arily of the Dynasty. If Konstantine was not equal to Tatiana Konstantinovna, Leonida was not equal to Vladimir Kirilovich.( Who was not a grand duke himself, according to the Laws, it was a "titre de courtoisie"...). This is simple and clear . Grand dukes, during the last years of the Empire, were only brothers, children and grand children of the Emperor. The sons of GD Konstantine Konstantinovich were born as grand dukes, but became princes when the Laws were modified, before the end or the monarchy. The last Emperor was GD Mikhail for a very short time, and all the grand dukes and grand duchesses are now dead, alas. Sources : myself, marchesa Farace di Villaforesta— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb11:192:3f00:cc03:3d6f:ac49:d639 (talkcontribs)


I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Summer Palace of Peter the Great, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Some user reverted my edit, concerning Zakharov’s birth name and refuses to talk about his reasons at the talk page. Does anybody else mind adding this real name, which even Zakharov’s best friend, Grigori Gorin mentioned in his memoirs: [1] plus [2]and [3]. Neither in the article now, nor in the whole world you won’t find reliable sources, that his father and his grandfather were the Zakharovs. Otherwise, for their real name you will do. (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should've added the sources when adding the birth name (e.g., the lenta article [4]) rather than just saying that there are sources in the Russian wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 19:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you kindly do that for me? I don’t feel like edit warring. -- (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. -- (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 13 January 2023[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 07:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– Articles in Category:Defunct magazines published in Russia. Mass-proposing these because they are all historical journal titles being moved based on WP:COMMONNAME with Google Books Ngram as evidence.,

External links above are relevant Google Ngram charts. Russkaia rech for Moscow & Saint Petersburg share the same evidence link.

Capitalization: in every case the most common spelling also follows the native Russian form, with words after the first in lowercase, excepting proper names (in the instance of Mir Bozhii).


All these names are likely derived from the original Russian in the same way.

Historical journal titles are most commonly cited by a spelling determined by the ALA-LC romanization for Russian system (a.k.a. the Library of Congress system). Many academic publications use a modified version in bibliographies without ligatures (e.g., Armi͡anskiĭ vestnik becomes Armianskiĭ vestnik), and in the main text without diacritics (Armianskii vestnik), and possibly with simplified endings (Armiansky vestnik) and leading Iu- and Ia- becoming Yu- and Ya-, etc. This modified LOC system is codified in:

  • J. Thomas Shaw, The transliteration of modern Russian for English-language publications, Wikidata Q104587676.

   —Michael Z. 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 06:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support per multiple nomination. The twenty links provided as corroborative evidence are convincing. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 01:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If I look at Ngrams the only conclusin I am able to make is that the number of citations is so low that it can not be used to determine what is the most common name. Seriously, if one name was cited 3 times and another one 5 times, which is the most common? Now, if I understand it correctly, the names of the articles were determined by romanization of the Russian names using WP:RUS. I do not understand what is wrong with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Ngram docs say “we only consider ngrams that occur in at least 40 books.”[25] Can you refer to a specific example or two that we can examine more closely?
    It can be helpful to form an expression showing the proportional use, like this example that makes it clear one form prevailed with 60 to 90 percent of combined usage for over four decades.
    Were they named by WP:RUS? I don’t know, I doubt it, and I don’t think it matters much, or at all in cases like all of these where there is a clear COMMONNAME. That essay has permission but not consensus in my view. It corresponds to no standard, guaranteeing that its results will not be consistent with any real-world usage, and likely no editor has internalized its complex rules that require native knowledge of Russian. We’d probably be better off without it, and certainly would be by adopting a real, usable standard as the default romanization.  —Michael Z. 15:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) 80% says nothing without absolute numbers. If it is 80% with 50 instances over all years it is just white noise. 2) If you do not like WP:RUS, which seems to follow from your remark, you should propose it for deletion and and suggest how we are going to deal with cases when there is no clear English name. Your method to determine the common name is clearly flawed. AllWikipedia articles on Russian subjects, including localities, personalia etc follow WP:COMMON, and, in the absence of WP:COMMON, they follow WP:RUS. This has been built up in the last 15 or so years by many editors and refers to probably dozens if not hundreds thousands of articles. Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) WP:COMMONNAME asks for the “single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources,” which is an expression of relative frequency, not an absolute number. 80% is a high level of relative frequency. When you turn the smoothing down to 1 year and one name’s curve remains the highest for every year in the last 47,[26] that is an indicator of high frequency with low noise.
    It’s easily confirmed with a G Books search for 1976–2019:
    208 out of (208+75=283) = 73% of the total, or (208/75=2.77) 177% more than the other result.
    2) Good idea.
    What’s flawed how? What’s built up? There’s no evidence that a majority of Russian-derived article titles correspond to WP:RUS. There’s no deadline. Names that have been arbitrarily chosen (including those that happen to correspond to arbitrarily developed WP:RUS) will end up at their commonname sooner or later anyway, and there is good reason to believe that most of them will not correspond to the current WP:RUS.
    This mass page move is part of demonstrating that WP:RUS should be changed. Without such evidence, editors would just vote ILIKEIT and WP:RUS would remain arbitrary.  —Michael Z. 22:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Collect the evidence then before destroying the work of dozens of editors just because you do not like it. What you do it is pure disruption. Ymblanter (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’ve collected and presented evidence above. Asking for input and consensus before moving articles to meet our guidelines is not “destruction” or “disruption.”
    As I said, if you have any specific concerns about any of these article titles, just let us know and I’m glad to examine them more closely.  —Michael Z. 23:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I mentioned many times before, just presenting a search result proves nothing. To your other point, you also said "There’s no evidence that a majority of Russian-derived article titles correspond to WP:RUS". Well, investigate the question then and collect the evidence. This can be done by simple counting, and, as an active editor of this project for 12 years, I know it is correct. There are good reasons why we are using WP:RUS all this time. Ymblanter (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support particularly the lowercasing. I haven't looked deeply into the other issues. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose the changes to transliteration per Ymblanter. There are thousands of obscure articles for which it's hard to properly determine the relative frequency. I wouldn't open this can of worms. Alaexis¿question? 20:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) It’s not hard to determine the relative frequency, as I have done for these names. See the how-to guide, WP:SET. 2) Thousands of obscure articles are renamed every month. This is not new, and it is what leads to consensus and stability in article titles. The guideline WP:COMMONNAME explains why and WP:RM explains how. What can of worms?  —Michael Z. 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Ymblanter and WP:TITLECHANGES If an article title has been stable for a long time,[9] and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. I fail to see that "good reason" here, and this is a pointless exercise of replacing one transcription with another, with no clear benefit. No such user (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Conforming to WP:TITLE and specifically WP:COMMONNAME are good reasons. WP:CONSISTENT capitalization is another.
    Some of the current spellings do not conform to WP:RUS. Some don’t reflect any systemic romanization method.
    TITLECHANGES is about seeking consensus for controversial titles. None of these are controversial, but I am seeking consensus, for the first time in all 20 cases.  —Michael Z. 15:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not see a single one which does not conform to WP:RUS. For the second one, Mir Bozhy could be an alt title, the rest are fully aligned with WP:RUS. Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you saying Mir Bozhiy does correspond to WP:RUS? No, it does not. And I see at least one other that doesn’t.  —Michael Z. 15:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The domain-specific guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Translations also reinforces adherence to COMMONNAME.  —Michael Z. 16:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, the argument is that these do not have COMMONNAME. Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah. Which ones and what is the evidence? You wrote “one name was cited 3 times and another one 5 times,” but I demonstrated that each of these spellings has been used much more than that, and clearly more than other spellings.  —Michael Z. 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    13 of the 20 are classified as stubs, and the other 7 each have 13 to 50 total edits, and none of their titles have ever been discussed. The fact that they don’t conform to COMMONNAME is a good reason to discuss them.
    I welcome specific reasons to reconsider renaming any of these on the merits of the specific proposal, but opposing twenty separate changes for the sake of opposing change in general seems against the spirit of improving the encyclopedia.  —Michael Z. 20:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because we don't see those changes as improving anything. No such user (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The policy explains why they are an improvement. Seems to me that the existence of many guides to romanization in Wikipedia: space supports the notion that there is consensus that such things provide benefits (too bad the one for Russian is not a consensus guideline that follows any best-practices standard). As I won’t change your mind, I’ll agree to disagree.  —Michael Z. 18:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose both capitalisation & spelling changes. The arguments for bypassing WP:RUS do not look convincing. Same for capitalisation, as it appears to change when proper Russian names are rendered in English, i.e. it's Crime and Punishment, not Crime and punishment. Specific to periodicals, compare with nGrams for Krasnaya Zvezda vs Krasnaya zvezda, where the former dominates the latter: link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don’t want to bypass WP:RUS. We never get to WP:RUS because COMMONNAME comes first. (The essay WP:RUS doesn’t say when to use WP:RUS, but refers to the proposal lacking consensus WP:NCRUS, which starts by referring to COMMONNAME. It’s all trumped by WP:TITLE anyway which includes WP:CRITERIA and COMMONNAME.)
    I am not proposing moving Krasnaya Zvezda. The proposed capitalization is supported by each specific Ngram chart above. Some of them are close, and if you think any one is wrong, I can remove it from this proposal and file a separate RM.  —Michael Z. 17:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The publications are quite obscure so COMMONNAME may not be as useful; WP:CONSISTENT should also be taken into account. For example, proposing that capitalisation be changed for some publications, but not for Mir Bozhiy, does not make much sense. That's why perhaps the more prominent publications, such as Novy Mir & Krasnaya Zvezda, are not included? See also: Category:Literary magazines published in Russia, where most of the titles shown are rendered with title case. In general, this RM, along with the RMs for obscure Russian localities ([27]), appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Debating minor spelling variations & and (partially) introducing a new capitalisation scheme does not seem to be a good use of community's time as the result would not significantly improve the readers' experience. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mir Bozhii means “world of God” or “peace of God,” hence the capitalization. The Ngram link shows that usage supports this capitalization for this title only.
Currently, Russian-language journals articles’ capitalization is mixed. Changing individual ones to the most common and consistent capitalization is an improvement. If you’re saying this is evidence to create a convention or to change every single one, I won’t argue that someone could investigate that possibility.
Doing things better improves the reader’s experience. I don’t believe there’s a threshold of minimum impact required for changes: hundreds of individual articles are retitled daily, and I thought it would save time to do a batch instead. I agree a lot of debate against it without substantive objections is not a good use of the community’s time, but that was not my idea.  —Michael Z. 17:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what are you arguing is a good way to ensure these titles are at their best spelling and capitalization? Each should be RM’d separately? Only every single one must be RM’d together? Only a convention can be used for them and COMMONNAME not considered? Russian journals should never be retitled? You’re hinting this is the wrong way for you, so what is the right way?  —Michael Z. 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia already appears to have a capitalisation scheme for Russian-language periodicals. For example, Category:Literary magazines published in Russia only a few titles currently use sentence case; the rest, ~27, use title case. Likewise, in the Category:Russian-language_newspapers_published_in_Russia, 100% of multi-word titles (44 in all) use title case, rather than sentence case. I don't see a reason to change that, especially when this proposal would result in haphazard capitalisation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a “scheme.” That is just evidence of a combination of coincidence and the naïve assumption that nineteenth-century Russian-language journals are referred by reliable sources the same way that modern English-language magazines are. As you can see, none of the 20 titles we’re considering has been renamed as subject of a discussion, and I see no evidence that anyone has followed any scheme in that category.  —Michael Z. 19:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it’s not 100% in that category: Pavlovo-Posadskiye izvestiya is titled sentence-case.
Some have mandatory caps in place names, including Delovoy Peterburg, Nedvizhimost Belorussii, Sovetskaya Rossiya, Sovetskaya Sibir, Sovetsky Sakhalin, Vecherniy Krasnoyarsk, Vecherniy Murmansk, Vecherniy Novosibirsk, and Vecherniy Stavropol, so a significant percentage is “undetermined.”
Some do not correspond to WP:RUS. Some are translated into English. At least one is just misspelled. This indicates the absence of a universal scheme.  —Michael Z. 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's call it a convention then, whereas the vast majority of the Russian-language periodicals are rendered with names that use title case, not sentence case, however "naïve" this approach may be. In the above example of Category:Russian-language_newspapers_published_in_Russia, excluding titles that use mandatory caps, 1 out of ~28 publications use sentence case; the rest use title case. So it does not make sense to give up on the existing convention, in favor of a haphazard capitalization approach based on alleged COMMONNAMEs -- which may or may not exist given the small sample size. My opinion remains unchanged. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such a survey, if large enough, could be evidence of prevalence in editors’ historical choices, but there’s no indication if these were anything but random, and if not still doesn’t constitute a rationale. But on its own it is not evidence of any approach or a convention which implies a rationale, agreement, or standard.
But since you mention conventions, I checked:
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) (there’s no convention for periodicals and the one on comics is mute on capitulation): The titles of books (usually meaning the title of the literary work contained in the book) are capitalized by the same convention that governs other literary and artistic works such as plays, films, paintings etc.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters/Titles of Works: Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language; generally, retain the style of the original for modern works, and follow the usage in current[e] English-language reliable sources for historical works.
    • (Note e also recommends Google Ngram: In MoS's own wording, "recent", "current", "modern", and "contemporary" in reference to sources and usage should usually be interpreted as referring to reliable material published within the last forty years or so. In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years. For broader English-language usage matters, about forty years is typical. While style guides with fewer than five years in print have not been in publication long enough to have had as much real-world impact as those from around 2000–2015 (on which MoS is primarily based), the corpora used for Google ngrams are updated through 2019, and we frequently rely on what they indicate from the late 20th century and onward.)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages implies that foreign capitalization rules are generally applied.
 —Michael Z. 00:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for these. In this environment, it's instructive to look at the way that major publications are capitalised, so I added Novy Mir/Novy mir/Novii Mir to the nGram of 'one for the entries in this RM: [28]. One can see that both capitalisation approaches are used for Novy Mir, but the title cap version is more prominent. While Russkaya Beseda becomes indistinguishable from Russkaia beseda because it's much more obscure. It does not make sense for the capitalisation to differ between articles in the same category, based on limited number of samples to argue common name. It's unclear to me if the suggested names offer "the best spelling and capitalization". I don't see a compelling reason to move these titles while leaving Novy Mir, Krasnaya Zvezda, and the rest of the entries in Category:Russian-language_newspapers_published_in_Russia alone. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see the point of comparing the two different names. Are you sure novyi mir isn’t used for other meanings?
Anyway you missed some systematic spellings.[29] —Michael Z. 06:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support lowercasing. Oppose spelling changes that are not consistent with WP:RUS (as bad as that is). As User:Ymblanter pointed out above, the n of sources on these topics is too low to violate the house standard. —  AjaxSmack  04:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For all 20? Which guideline is this n from and what is n?  —Michael Z. 05:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, not for all 20. As this was presented as a mass nomination, I only checked five. If you want the individual merits of each one considered, separate nominations would be a better course. The n derives from my own judg(e)ment and is higher than the numbers given in the discussion above. Sources for these journals are relatively few and usage is mixed. In addition, in some cases like Osvobozhdeni(y)e there are a huge number of false positives; in others like Adskay/ia pochta and Russkay/ia beseda the hits are on topic, but the number of ALA-LC is increased by transliterated Russian texts and bibiliography entries in sources that use that as their house romanization. Considering all of this, I see no strong compelling reason to ignore Wikipedia's own house transliteration. (Cf. if you care the strict adherence to WP:PINYIN for equally obscure Chinese topics even if sources overwhelmingly use Wade-Giles.)  AjaxSmack  05:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are the “false positives” also romanizations of the Russian word osvobozhdenie? Then they are not false. No one sets out to spell a word one way when it’s in a title and another when it’s not.
    Also not sure what you mean by the number is “increased by.” It is in part comprised of. If by “house style” you’re saying that consistent spelling is used by sources, then that is part of usage to be counted, not something that disqualifies it from being counted. (On top of that it points to adopting a standard.)
    Pinyin and Wade-Giles are standards. WP:RUS is an amateur system based on ILIKEIT for no reason, and its only definable characteristics are 1) it is not just transliteration but has complicated rules, and 2) it corresponds to no standard, and therefore is less likely to hit on the COMMONNAME than a one-line else. Compare the consensus guideline WP:CHINESE which refers to standards and academic practice to the essay WP:RUS.
    I was surprised that every one of these has hundreds up of examples of usage indexed by Google books, and every one has a clearly most commonly used one.
    So is your own acceptable n 1,000? 10,0000? Does it jive with any RM decisions that have found “no single most commonly used name”? —Michael Z. 15:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with your assessment of WP:RUS romanization and would likely support replacing it with a real one if the chance arose.  AjaxSmack  04:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

GAR for Nastia Liukin[edit]

Nastia Liukin has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Krasnoturyinsk#Requested move 11 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timashyovsk#Requested move 11 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shchyokino (town), Tula Oblast#Requested move 11 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian government censorship of Chechnya coverage#Requested move 16 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removed ban editors[edit]


  1. Abhijay (talk · contribs)
  2. Arusmanov (talk · contribs)
  3. Greyhood (talk · contribs) (Russia in global geopolitics)
  4. User:Nanobear~enwiki (talk · contribs)

REMOVED #Russavia (talk · contribs)

  1. SecretName101 (talk · contribs)
  2. Slon02 (talk · contribs)

REMOVED #Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs)

This is about Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Politics and law of Russia task force maybe it should be archived as inactive? Metro2fsb (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new article[edit]

Committee on International Affairs of the State Duma :) Thoughts? Metro2fsb (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia ads[edit]

Template:Wikipedia_ads is there an ad for project russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metro2fsb (talkcontribs) 03:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality score for Russian money in London[edit]

Talk:Russian money in London

Metro2fsb (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other groups[edit]

Metro2fsb (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfC help[edit]

I realize this draft is Soviet Union history but Russia project seems more active hence why I am posting here. Could use help with determining notability for Draft:Gelsomino's miraculous voice. CNMall41 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tired of ongoing edit-warring across many articles, I opened the above RfC. Please participate. Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming Template:ВТ-ЭСБЕ[edit]

{{ВТ-ЭСБЕ}} – that’s Cyrillic VT-ÈSBE – is used for citing the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary in 112 pages. I’d rename to a Latin-alphabet name for accessibility, but I don’t even know what VT stands for. Any advice? If you know what to do, please just go ahead and move it. —Michael Z. 20:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian Consulate General in Chennai at AfD[edit]

Consulate General of Russia, Chennai has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation welcome. Thanks! Rasnaboy (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assistance required to end deadlock in merger proposal discussion[edit]

I've been editing the articles relating to the Scythians over the course of several months, and since most editors tend to favour splitting pages after they reach a certain size, I split two further pages, Iškuza and Scythia, covering the phases of Scythian history respectively in West Asia and in Europe, out of the main page covering the Scythians.

However, trying to split it has resulted into three articles, with both Iškuza and Scythia requiring large amounts of material regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Moreover, the Scythia page as it exists now also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that most of the information relating to this polity also is also the same basic information that is required on the Scythians page.

Given this resulting situation, I have started a merger proposal to resolve this issue, per WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other.

The problem is that, despite months having passed, the discussion for the merger proposal is still at a deadlock, with three users opposed to the merger, and three users (including myself) in favour of it. In this difficult situation, I have been advised to bring this issue to the various WikiProjects which are relevant to Scythians as a way to possibly resolve the deadlock, and all good faith assistance to reach a consensus would be much welcome. Antiquistik (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Second Battle of Kharkov[edit]

Second Battle of Kharkov has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alexei Navalny 2013 mayoral campaign#Requested move 10 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terek Oblast or Terek oblast ?[edit]

Talk:Terek Oblast#Terek and Dagestan oblasts. Disagreement as to the capitalization ant italicizing of the article title. 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:En-ghe#Requested move 16 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created a draft for Nikolai Sokov. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure he passes the notability criteria, please review WP:PROF and add more sources as necessary. Alaexis¿question? 20:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Second Cold War (March 2023)[edit]

Discussion about maps representing Russia and Ukraine has been started. Link: Talk:Second Cold War#Maps in the Russo-Ukrainian War section. George Ho (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on general & party elections[edit]

An RFC about the intros to general & party elections, is being held. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category and description changes in biographies[edit]

I've noticed that an editor is removing many articles from "Russian" categories and placing them into "Russian Empire" categories, eg from Category:Russian revolutionaries to Category:Revolutionaries from the Russian Empire. Has there been any discussion among WP:RUSSIA editors about these changes? They are nested categories, so broadly speaking a person is only supposed to be in the most specific one, but since "Russian" is supposed to indicate both geographic and ethnic origin I don't know that this is a change that ought to be made by people unfamiliar with the subject matter. It's also leading to some strange constructions in the articles themselves, like Petr Maslov (economist), whose article now describes him as "a Russian Empire and Soviet economist and agriculturist" (with wikilink to Russian Empire), instead of "a Russian economist" (with wikilink to Russian people). -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)[edit]

152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Volodymyr Saldo#Requested move 6 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Vkhutemas[edit]

I have nominated Vkhutemas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]