Russia: Politics and law / Human geography Template‑class

This template 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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. This template is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

I don't know about other templates—they may actually need frequent change. This particular template doesn't need an Edit button because the template is a) complete b) if it needs to be changed, I'll be the first to do it (and even if I miss it. I don't need an ugly Edit button there to make the changes. It's not like this template changes every week—the last time it needed change was before Wikipedia even existed!

Hey, here's an idea—why don't we put dozens of Edit buttons on the perimeter of the template just for the heck of it (one is just too small, after all; what if someone does not notice it?)--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 04:20, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is convenient for wikipros and for newcomers. Acknowledge it. Whether this needs frequent editing or not is pointless. Should we remove the edit button from the hundred or so articles that haven't been touched in months, or even years? --Cantus 05:31, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that this is not an article—this is a template, it serves as a part of navigational interface. I've checked the replies of others regarding the Edit buttons in other templates, and so far I have not seen one person supporting them. If no one wants them, why should you still be right? Have you at least tried to conduct a survey whether or not these buttons are necessary? Believe me, if the majority of people agrees they are necessary, I'll be among the first adding the Edit button to other templates. So far you are just trying to outstubborn everyone who does not want these buttons without even trying to gain any support or explain why we should deface all of the templates for so-called "convenience" of editing them. It's not like there is no other way to edit them, there are at least two I know of, and they are not all that hard.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:38, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Unlike federal districts, economic regions are not really subdivisions. They are used mostly for economic purposes as they cover the territories that were historically located in similar economic conditions. They are not "administrative" per se. I am going to remove them from the template.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless the E.Regions like the F.Districts group the F.Subjects. The template is not called "administrative subdivisions". But maybe the term subdivision already implies this? If so, my version with the E.Regions could cause confusion. Of course even if it does not imply administration then it can cause confusion. Just notice that even the term adminstration is not clear. admins are not only found in government.

statistical purposes - that's administration of data. can we maybe reinsert the E.Regions and state they are not ... (please fill in) Tobias Conradi 01:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this template should contain links to each of Russia's several federal districts. I made the change several weeks ago, but was reverted. pbp 14:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jargo Nautilus and Cambial Yellowing: Cambial Yellowing is removing Donetsk and Luhansk and Kherson. It is a disruptive editing because other occupied area (Crimea) is included here. Panam2014 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Refrain from making false accusations of bad faith disruptive editing. If you do so again you will be reported for personal attacks. No RS support your additions, and that is why the articles about those supposed entities have been deleted. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ought to be obvious, but if "Russia have declared" something that does not make it a fact. If you fail to understand the distinction this may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point though that Crimea should be treated in the same way. Crimea does not belong to Russia like the other four regions, so it should be removed from the template as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I can't see how Crimea is any different from Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. If those four are to be removed, then Crimea should be as well. We can't have such an inconsistency. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think an argument could be made to support the removal of Crimea, and I'm quite ambivalent either way. Your suggestion of inconsistency does not reflect the position as established in reliable sources. The situation is different: see Political status of Crimea. But, to be clear, if someone removes it I will not oppose that. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia annexed Crimea through very similar processes that it annexed Donetsk etc. The process was illegal from start to finish. Only a minority of countries have recognised Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The number of states indicating recognition is a small minority, but not totally insignificant. In the other cases it is totally inconsequential: Syria and North Korea, neither of which carry even the tiniest diplomatic weight. Again, I don't oppose removal of Crimea enough to argue the point. If you think it should be removed go ahead. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk People's Republic is not Donetsk Oblast. Panam2014 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: I would oppose any removal of Crimea from this template, because under same logical Taiwan should also be removed from Template:Province-level divisions of China? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, territorial disputes are not all the same. That said, a strong case can be made for removing that, as reliable sources agree that Taiwan is not a division of the PRC. But that is a discussion for that article, not here. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Syria and North Korea, neither of which carry even the tiniest diplomatic weight" - I oppose: North Korea is a nuclear state, an option only few states can afford, and even launches its own satellites. That requires having high technologies, even if NK uses them for military purposes rather than for science. But I'd keep subdivisions of Russia because the template is for Russian vision of its own subjects (you may simply write words about international recognition upon need), all of them being largely controlled and administered by it, that makes a difference with Taiwan which Chine doesn't control at all, the otherwise is even more true. --M1911 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]