Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Countries page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:COUNTRIES

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 60 days

Countries Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess .

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Archive 8: Jul – Dec 2006 Archive 9: Jan – Jul 2007 Archive 10: Jul 2007 – Dec 2010 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Category:Flag template shorthands has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

I have nominated

]

Maps of Suriname

After corrections of mine were reverted whilst I was introducing maps of a border dispute of Suriname, I have started an RfC at Talk:Suriname#RfC: Should maps show border claims? I hope it will have a clear outcome, because the border dispute cannot be denied (there are enough reliable sources for that). I am generally contributing to the Dutch language Suriname Wikiproject and I do not have a lot of knowledge of regulations here on English Wikipedia. It is even my first RfC. So I would welcome a helping hand for a flexible and successful process. Ymnes (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to participate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland part 2. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Armenia
• Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Azerbaijan
• Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Belarus
• Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Estonia
• Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Georgia
• Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Kazakhstan
• Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Kyrgyzstan
• Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Latvia
• Soviet Latvia → Soviet Latvia (disambiguation)
• Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Lithuania
• Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Moldova
• Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic → Soviet Russia
• Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Tajikistan
• Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Turkmenistan
• Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Ukraine
• Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Uzbekistan

– For

lending weight to reliable sources written post 1991 (every one of these is an existing country that renamed itself after becoming independent, not a newly created polity).

Frequency of use of various names in reliable sources can be gauged using Google Ngram (links below). In some cases where there were variations on the national name and all variations were too long for a single Ngram, I compared the most common of several sets. In some cases, a different name was most common by a small or moderate margin (i.e.,

), but this proposal gives weight to consistency as outlined above, as well as consistency with the modern name in the case of Moldavia/Moldova.

Am SSR,[1] Az SSR,[2] By SSR,[3][4][5][6] Ee SSR,[7] Ge SSR,[8] Kz SSR,[9] Kg SSR,[10][11][12][13] Lv SSR,[14] Lt SSR,[15] Md SSR,[16][17][18] Ru SFSR,[19] Tj SSR,[20] Tm SSR,[21] Ua SSR,[22] Uz SSR,[23]

This move follows the failed RM at Talk:Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic#Requested move 30 March 2023, where the lack of consistency resulting from renaming only one of fifteen was a significant roadblock for consensus.  —Michael Z. 23:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 20+ years long established titles - official names of the republics. Of course, people use storter name. Why don't we move United States → America then? I give one attempt to guess what is the content of the latter page ;-) - Altenmann >talk 05:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States is a short version of the official name

WP:TITLE policy.  —Michael Z. 05:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Is Moldova intended to use a different format? I noted in the Ukraine discussion that this is really a question of disambiguation for particular historical entities/particular time periods of continuous entities (all very potentially nebulous). en.wiki has a habit of using official names for such constitutional period articles (French Fourth Republic, Fourth Philippine Republic, Kingdom of Nepal, Kingdom of Iceland). This is certainly not a perfect way to go about things (at the very least it certainly imposes a particular historical framing on the articles and their content), but its widespread use likely reflects its understandability and convenience. I think readers will understand both potential titles (or all 3), so I don't have a strong view, just a note that at the moment for whatever cultural-linguistic reason, "Soviet Latvia" feels like an adjective-noun pair, rather than the single compound noun feeling that "Soviet Union" evokes. CMD (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve updated

  Soviet Moldova for consistency. (I don’t know what I was thinking.)  —Michael Z. 12:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose - I see Mzajac's point, but arguably "Uzbek SSR" (not giving abbreviation written out in full) is more common in English, and the "Soviet Foo-country" creates a number of ambiguities. 'Soviet Estonia' could refer to both 1918 Commune and 1940 SSR, Soviet Ukraine has similar issue. Kirghiz SSR indicates a republic where the Kirghiz were the titular nationality, whilst Kirghizstan indicates a specific country. 'Kirghizstan' was occassionally used during Soviet period but 'Soviet Kirghizia' was more common. Likewise we have the Belorussia/Belarus issue (a name shift that occured after end of BSSR). And so forth. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We have disambiguation for the ambiguities (which we’re already using for several of these), but the

  WP:PRIMARY

  topic for each is very clear.

  The Commune of the Working People of Estonia, for example, was a Bolshevik puppet government under Russian occupation that lasted six months. I see no evidence that any sources call it Soviet Estonia. Please give evidence if you insist there is ambiguity.

  Soviet Kirghizia/Soviet Kirgizia was not more common.[24] And of course this is about what we use now per

  WP:MPN

  , and not to proliferate Cold War terminology that has become anachronistic (or the Soviet Union article would probably be titled Russia or Communist Russia). The Ngram charts clearly show a dramatic change in naming of every one of these in the 1990s, and that the current names contradict our guidelines. The name shift of Belarus did occur, as you say, its outcome is clear, and it is not an issue if we just follow the guideline.

  Would you be in favour if the proposal were modified? Consistency is low in the

  WP:CRITERIAORDER, and we have an opportunity to improve all of these article titles if we just try.  —Michael Z. 15:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Kirg(h)izia was more common. I did not know this. You have to set the date range to something like 1945–1992. Setting it to 1983–2019 will not answer the question. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure which question you mean.

  WP:MOS, note i, "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.

  I’ve used 40 years for the Ngram charts. The charts show the transition started after the beginning of perestroika in 1985 and completed by 1995, so 30 years or less would be appropriate for names of most Soviet things. Renaming of the articles Kyiv in 2020, Donbas in 2021, and Odesa in 2022 shows there is also an extended post-colonial transition.

  The names we use for these places today are different than they were during the Cold War. We don’t write White Russia, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Kiev, Kharkov, Lvov, to name some more obvious examples.  —Michael Z. 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't write "White Russia, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Kiev, Kharkov, Lvov", but you are well aware (since this discussion pops up again and again) that there isn't a consensus on this. And for what it's worth Kirghizia and Kyrgyzstan are two different names, adoption of Kyrgyz was a political move after break-up of USSR, talking about 'Kyrgyz SSR' would be like talking about the Mumbai Presidency. --Soman (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s your opinion. Reliable sources of this century don’t agree. [25]

  In my view, imposing the Russian name on a non-Russian nation was political. Today’s more neutral sources are decolonizing the name as a result of depoliticization. The historiography of this is documented.[26] —Michael Z. 16:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, Kirg(h)iz SSR was most common then.[27] Soviet Kyrgyzstan and Kyrgyz SSR are most common now.[28]  —Michael Z. 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose : I concur with the other opposition: long history of the current names, increased ambiguity. The current names were the official names of those political units at the time they were in place, so changing them would be, I think, counterproductive. But even if none of those arguments were the case, I don't see any advantage to the move. If the desire is to have soviet whatever, then the existing redirects should satisfy the goal. Radzy0 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ambiguity is not increased, because 14 of 15 proposed titles just redirect to the same articles already, and in the 15th (Soviet Latvia), the target is the primary topic.

  The advantage is better fulfilling four of the five the

  WP:CRITERIA

  that are the principles behind titling.

  But ambiguity falls under the third criterion in

  WP:CRITERIAORDER, so the guideline mandates us to improve the title to better satisfy the first and second in favour of the third (and the fourth and fifth while we’re at it).  —Michael Z. 00:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Oppose: I agree with others here, renaming the republics like this is very restrictive and leaves things open to ambiguity. Many of these name changes could lead to confusion with Soviet republics of the Russian Civil War. The currently existing redirects already fulfill this move request anyway.

One other issue comes from the title “Soviet Russia”, as this label is often used to refer to the Soviet Union as a whole rather than just Russia. 296cherry (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles on Soviet republics would become ambiguous after the moves?

The current arrangement of redirects and disambiguation already address and resolve the ambiguity that exists, and swapping names would preserve the same arrangement. Including

Soviet Russia, which redirects to the article on the RSFSR with a hatnote. The result would remain effectively the same.  —Michael Z. 01:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose:Per others. Confusing and poorly phrased. Redirects also already exist, so who cares? Daikido (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s confusing?  —Michael Z. 17:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: When looking at an old map, does one see parts of the former USSR labelled as "Soviet [name]" or as "[name] SSR"? More often than not, is it not the latter of the two? After all, the "[name] SSR" format is used to refer to most of these nations prior to their independence. The article should not be moved. transgerman_ (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does an old map relate to our guidelines for titling new articles? How does the data you’ve assembled compare to the Ngram searches I compiled? Maps are a special case: they tend to explicitly label official names of things, and only represent a very tiny proportion of the usage that COMMONNAME is interested in surveying.

But I see there are old maps that just say “Ukraine,” for example, 1921, 1936, 1941, 1941, c1950?, 1950s?, 1966, 1990.  —Michael Z. 22:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Existing names are fine. Changing to Soviet Russia is an obvious problem, given that term was most often used as a synecdoche for the USSR as a whole. I also agree with the previous comment suggesting that this name scheme switches compound nouns for an adjective-noun pair; this also implies that their Soviet-ness was their key feature rather than their Tajik-ness, for instance, which downplays their distinctiveness. Handpigdad (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its Sovietness individually was what distinguished Soviet Tajikistan from the rest of Tajik history.  —Michael Z. 13:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pls review

Arbitration acceptance of the essay) Moxy- 18:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose these are proper names, while "Soviet x" isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beshogur (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]