This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article 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.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
The first two forms of government in my edit, Federal parliamentary socialist soviet directorial republic and Federal Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would not address the concerns presented above - would suggest instead expanding the Government section of the article text with more detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be here as it was the form of government when it was not a party of the USSR, when other parties were allowed. To not put this in the government infobox is foolish at best and obstructionist at worst. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 11 January 2025
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 -- (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.
Where it says
“from 1956-1991” it should say “in 1956-1991”, as 1991 is the ending point, not the upper limit of the starting point. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. If you go to that category, you can see that the majority of the countries/states listed there are former socialist republics. It may actually be useful though, to remove redundant categories where they are already implied by daughter categories, I am not familiar enough with this, so I’m not confident doing that.Slomo666 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]