Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus

RFC on Listing of Belarus
Should Belarus be listed in the infobox, and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024: (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section. (That's what it's for.)

Note to closer: If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please either close with the least strong choice, or recommend a second RFC for resolution.

Discussion

 * Which page we are talking about, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russo-Ukrainian War or the both? There was a recent RfC on this subject for page Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do we need a new RfC about the same? The discussion of the disagreement was on talk of a different page Russo-Ukrainian War. I would say the recent RfC applies to both pages, but not sure if others agree. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. For page Russo-Ukrainian War, this is complicated by another RfC, Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict, where "supported by" parameter was depreciated. Which leaves an option for Belarus to be included just as another "combatant". But including it as an outright combatant would be rather problematic. In any case, option (b) will not be allowed per template parameters and the RfC. (c) and/or (d)? I certainly would not mind; they do not seem to be an outright violation of the RfC about the template. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CONS in this situation would likely be a great start to make a change. Technical implementation can be done later if there is an agreement, especially because this article is popular and requires objective presentation of facts. I believe "co-belligerent" is a perfect middle choice because Lukashenko's statements and Belarus' allowance for the Russian Army to use its territory to invade Ukraine and to shot missiles towards Ukraine had clearly demonstrated that the current Ukraine is an enemy of Lukashenko's Belarus. I requested a RFC for article Russo-Ukrainian War because in article Russian invasion of Ukraine the role of Belarus is already quite fairly presented. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see that infobox of Russo-Ukrainian War now includes supplied by which is not a standard parameter. Given that, adding something along the lines of options (c) and (d) would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think something like that would be already acceptable, but "co-belligerent" would probably require an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it was reverted. OK. But I suggest we include option (b) as proposed by mediator. It is entirely possible that new consensus will override the old one. But I think we should simply follow the consensus of previous RfC here and the new RfC may not be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:My very best wishes - I am interested in how you found this draft RFC, because I had thought that other editors would not see it until we finished discussing it at DRN. Has it been listed in one of the lists of open RFCs?  If so, which one?  Has someone put a reference to it in a WikiProject?  Please advise me as to how you found it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (Reply to ping). I checked the DRN discussion (it was visible), and then followed your link provided in "Third statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)". Since I was not a party to the dispute, I just commented on article talk page and also here. Good luck with keeping your good work on DRN! My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)