Talk:Novorossiya (confederation)

relevance of 2022 section?
There is no indication that Novorossiya has been revived, on the contrary Russia has annexed these territory into itself. --Nilsol2 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Change Infobox from :Info-box former country to :Info-box Geopolitical organization
To keep the info-box I'm making a discussion to change the info box From "former country" to "Geopolitical organization". This is to keep all the useful information located in the info box. This is also to talk about if we should consider Novorossiya a country or not. thank You. Zyxrq (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Greetings, by re-applying cancelled changes you are edit warring. See WP:EW. Please stop. Please seek consensus before re-adding the infobox, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's practically what this discussion is about. To find a consensus on what to do with the info box. From my knowledge There wasn't really a consensus on the info-box. I.e. it has been deleted and re added many times before this. and from my knowledge Wikipedia policy is to revert the edit to its original statues I.e the "info-box" before a consensus is reached. so sorry if it seemed if I was edit warring. That was not my intention. I also added the infobox for an example of what we could be add onto the Geopolitical organization infobox if a consensus is reached. If you want, if you fell the need for the infobox to be removed, would you be a dear and move the infobox to this discussion for me. Also thank you for your concern. Zyxrq (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that the infobox should summarize, but "not supplant" key facts of the article. Since the article is in a bad state, I don't think we should have an infobox, let alone the one shown here. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT would apply there. As for the infobox I agree with about changing it to a "Geopolitical organization" as it was never a country to begin with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Knowledgekid87, the stable version of the article has no infobox. SOFIXIT is not applicable since there is no consensus for it. Please don't push new changes with edit war, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually you were the one who removed it in September, then it was reverted several times. Anyway, can we actually get back on track for a discussion on the matter? If there is a consensus to remove the infobox then this will be moot anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your rationale of "no RS, a project is not a country" is what is addressing. I think we all agree that it was never a country. There is another infobox that can replace that though... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was also not an organization.And the start point is that there is no consensus to add the infobox in the first place. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Im wondering if it can be compared to Grand Duchy of Flandrensis then. This was a proposed project by a legit government, so maybe a micronation? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Only an abandoned political technology. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well we have sources calling it a "project". Abandoned or not it would still fall under some category, and the article can always be fixed/cleaned up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources call it an abandoned project and various "Country" - like infoboxes are inappropriate. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well no, Carnegie used the words "hypothetical confederation of states". If we were going by proposals then we do have infoboxes in articles for mironations that don't actually control the territory they claim or claimed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Having an infobox for non-hypothetical entity in an article for hypothetical entity is misleading. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * most of the arguments against it are about it not being relevant or even a real country most probably don't even consider lpr and dpr to be real countries even though they de facto exist so I see no reason why it shouldn't have a infobox (its entire purpose is to simplify information in a easy to digest way) it exists de facto to a degree and de jure barely since it wasn't officially created but if someone doesn't add this to the page within a week I will just add it myself. AvailableViking (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry I see no sensible argument here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I often dont find any anywhere so its purely subjective like most group based decisions on wikipedia AvailableViking (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I followed through with my words but it was reverted, the entire conversation here is about if it is a country which is not up to us as Wikipedians to decide because that would be original research it should have an infobox because it was a organization of some significance that was proposed like the East African Union page. The only people I see fighting against the infobox are all pro Ukrainians which would be a conflict of interest because they would not consider Novorossiya a country in The first place so I think it legitimately should have an infobox we shouldn’t have to deal with this sort of bureaucracy when dealing with information that should be centralized and accessible AvailableViking (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a country. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You prove my point AvailableViking (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and restored your edit, just of note almost every revert has been done by Manyareasexpert. If this is undone again then an admin may need to step in to close this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. Please restore the stable article version and reach consensus before reintroducing new changes. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You know 3RR/edit warring applies for multiple reverted edits by the same editor within 24 hours right? You have undone the infobox addition now by multiple editors. Please accept that a consensus is there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Formal things: The version without the infobox was stable since Sept 13, i.e. for more than four months. That's what should be called "stable". On Sept 13, I had reverted who has been indeffed for sockpuppetry.

Content-related things: As I mentioned above, we have MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. E.g. where does the article mention the currency ? The driving side ? Is the driving side a key fact for a non-existing entity ? Is the motto a key fact ? Can Gubarev be considered a reliable source ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Those things can easily be omitted, and Gubarev can be checked at WP:RSN. I don't see how that justifies a complete removal of the info-box on the things that are mentioned in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gubarev is not reliable, and the consensus version is without infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For checking the reliability of Pavel Gubarev, a pro-Russian separatist leader, common sense is enough. Knowledgekid87, what "key facts from the article" (quoting MOS from memory) should in your opinion be included in the infobox ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Offhand I did not know the reference, it would be interesting if another source could confirm it. As for "key facts"? This really is subjective on what infobox we use... I mean if we use "Micronation" the fields "status", "Official languages", "Area claimed", "Membership", and possibly "Motto" could be used along with the flag and coat of arms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting MOS, now via copy and paste: "key facts that appear in the article". Taking a quick glance at the article, I couldn't find any of the details you suggested. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why don't we search for sources then? We definitely have one down in terms of "status" being "abandoned", "a confederation between the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) in Eastern Ukraine, both of which were under the control of pro-Russian separatists" is also mentioned by BBC, so wouldn't that be membership? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to devise such an infobox for an "abandoned project" without OR and undue weight. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Knowledgekid87, for an example if the East African Federation, which is a similar project to Novorossiya (confederation). If it fails will its info-box get Removed? If not, We should keep the info-box and change it to Info-box Geopolitical organization or another info-box. After that we should make any necessary changes. Zyxrq (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with having an info-box like that for Novorossiya. If sourcing is an issue, then it would encourage others to add more info to the article to expand the box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguments above need to be addressed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay: "Having an infobox for non-hypothetical entity in an article for hypothetical entity is misleading", from what source are you getting "non-hypothetical" from? As for WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, we have coverage from both western and Russian sources. Given the war going on I can understand why it would be a sensitive topic, but this isn't academically justifiable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox is for non-hypothetical entity. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see that any of the proponents addressed the MOS issue I raised above. Zyxrq, I think comparing the East African Federation, a project by seven real states (i.e. non-puppet states), with this project is against common sense. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It isn't rally against common since. yes the states were pupate states but they were still De facto independent States. Having the Info-box Geopolitical organization is not somehow against common since. We know there was an attempt to form a confederation, we know it was a project and we now it existed. Also @Manyareasexpert why don't you think it's possible to devise such an info-box for an "abandoned project" without OR and undue weight? Can you explain that to me? Zyxrq (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Showing a Country infobox for non-existant entity is UNDUE. Saying a non-existant entity had "official language" and "claimed" something (like area) is an OR. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The claimed area stretches from Karkiv to Odessa according to this source:. Here we have a secondary source quoting what the D.P.P. said. Also no its not UNDUE, see: List of micronations. There is an infobox for the non-existent country of New Utopia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also @Knowledgekid87 has a point when it goes to WP:OR and WP:UNDUE in the case of this subject. Zyxrq (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where my MOS concerns have been addressed. I think before claiming consensus we should start an RfC. Rsk6400 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I havent seen any progress on a consensus over the past several weeks, my points still stand and I think the page deserves a infobox AvailableViking (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your point about me (and other editors) having a "conflict of interest" is not in line with the definition, see WP:COI, and IMHO your other points are not convincing. BTW: I'm pro-Russian, as I clearly state on my user's page. I'm also pro-Ukrainian, but when editing I strive to be simply pro-RS and pro-WP guidelines. WP guidelines say that in case of no consensus, status quo remains. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * its hard for a consensus to be reached when no one is willing to work towards one or if people are too incompetent to work towards action. Status quo is for incompetent people who are unwilling to make things change AvailableViking (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2024
The caption for the images of the flags at the top of the page should be changed so the first letter is capitalized. "Flags used..." instead of the current "flags used..." Schlatters (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)