Talk:Rossiyane

This article was nominated for deletion on August 6 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 16:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rossiyane → Russian citizens – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH, this should be moved to Russian citizens, Citizens of Russia, People of Russia, or Russian people. The conception of Russianness in Russian (rossiyane vs. russkiye) is an important one, and perhaps there should be an article specifically about it. But the word rossiyane is not English. It is almost always italicized, used for explanation or to gloss translations, and almost never actually used in English, and is not naturalized in English grammar (i.e. has no English singular/plural form). It is not in English dictionaries, and would not be understood by the vast majority of readers. See relative frequency in Google Ngram. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC) —Michael Z. 2014-08-17 17:19 z 17:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support this article seems to be about the concept of Russian citizenship, rather than Russian citizenship per se, and the implications of terminology used in Russian... -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We should not be using transliteration where a perfectly good, unambiguous English translation is available.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 20, 2014; 14:42 (UTC)

But the article is not about Russian citizens. It is mostly about the term rossiyane. Is anyone proposing a change of focus/scope? — AjaxSmack 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't know what the article is about, and nobody seems to, as it wanders in all directions. It does have some quite limited discussion about the term, and then goes on to discuss the issues of citizenship and demographics. I'd rather see this mess merged to Demographics of Russia or wherever. No such user (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it, the article could very well be about Russian citizens (citizenship?), in which case a discussion of the term can easily be incorporated into a separate paragraph to which the term itself can redirect. Having an article primarily about the term and then stuffing citizenship/demographics information into it seems like a sort of a backwards approach, especially considering that the usage of the term in English is minimal. It's not even a "term", frankly, but merely a transliteration of a Russian word.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 21, 2014; 15:29 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure if it was the intent of User:Ezhiki and User:No such user but your arguments have convinced me that there isn't much to the current Rossiyane article and that other topics should not be shoehorned into it. Therefore, I propose the article be WP:SPLIT with relevant portions being merged into some of the articles listed at Rossiyane#See also. For example, aspects relating to citizenship can go to Russian nationality law and the discussion of Rossiyane vs. Russkie can got to Demographics of Russia#Ethnic groups or Ethnic groups in Russia. The term can then redirect to one of those. What do you think? — AjaxSmack 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @AjaxSmack: I'd be fine with this solution, although it seems to me that citizenship in Russia (along the lines of citizenship in the United States and citizenship of the European Union) would be a better choice of title for the article currently at Russian nationality law. But that concern is, of course, out of this RM's scope.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 21, 2014; 21:14 (UTC)
      - I like the idea of citizenship in Russia but do not plan to do the work myself. I am willing to do the work splitting the content of this article if others agree. I have a problem with the proposed title "Russian citizens"; it is vague and does not seem to describe the contents of the article and better than the current title. Therefore,...

...Oppose. The article has a problem but it lies with its nature and not its title. "Russian citizens" is vague and does not solve these problems. As I noted above, I support a split of the article and am willing to do the work. What say y'all? — AjaxSmack 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do support in principle but AjaxSmack's proposal seems better. Prefer split as per Ajax. Red Slash 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split and merge (as nominator) I heartily support AjaxSmack’s proposal. The article is not strong, and renaming it is only glossing over its fundamental difficulty. The solution is for someone to apply some work to improve it or reconfigure. As AjaxSmack is volunteering, I support their efforts. I see that the supposed topic is already covered in Russians#Ethnonym, which article section might also benefit from some of this material.
Citizenship in Russia could be a good article too, but let’s clean this up before launching a new project. —Michael Z. 2014-09-04 18:36 z

Support: I strongly agree that "Russian citizens" is more comprehensible to English-speakers than the transliteration "Rossiyane", which I have not seen used frequently, if at all, outside Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And a comment: if Russian citizens cannot get consensus, what about alternatives -- Russian nationals or people of Russia? -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 January 2015

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 review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: merged into Russian nationality law/Citizenship of Russia. No such user (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossiyane → Russian people – There is no such word "Rossiyane" in the English language. The article lists only the Russian sources, but where English sources? In English, Russian citizens are called "Russians". So I suggest to rename the "Russian people" (see also British people) Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian people" is the same as Russians (to which it already redirects) and is not an equivalent of this term. As suggested in the RM immediately above, this page could be moved to "Russian citizens" or the like, but unfortunately no consensus was reached. I would support moving this page to "Russian citizens" or any of its equivalents as suggested in the previous RM, but definitely not to "Russian people"...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 5, 2015; 20:48 (UTC)

Merge with Russians. If there is no reason to keep the current article under the title Rossiyane then content should be merged into the single article content. Names as per Category:Ethnic groups in Europe. Demonyms that can be pluralised are used in plural forms to signify the people as in Russians. Demonyms that cannot be pluralised are given the qualifier people as in British people. Greg Kaye 13:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Russians, or make a redirect, there is no English source for this article and it is synthesis. Spumuq (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An absence of an English source is not a valid delete/merge reason; see WP:NOENG. And while the choice of the title for this article is bad (it is a romanization of a Russian term instead of one of several suitable translations), it does not make the Russians article a suitable upmerge target. Not all Russian citizens are Russians, nor all Russians are Russian citizens. See also my other comments above. There are many ways to deal with this situation (some suggested in the previous RM on this very page), but merging this content with "Russians" is one of the least acceptable ones.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 8, 2015; 15:40 (UTC)
Merge to Russians; this is a WP:POVFORK. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Russians. We do not have separate articles covering citizens of a particular country, since all material that would exist in such an article can reasonably be held in the country article itself, i.e. Russia. There is scope for an article dealing specifically with citizenship, the legal situation, citizen's rights etc, similar to what is found in Citizenship in the United States, but this article is not that. In fact we already have Russian nationality law that pretty much serves that purpose. — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why !vote to merge this into ill-suited Russians and not into the Russian nationality law (something I'd personally support as well)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 16, 2015; 13:29 (UTC)
In fact, there is very little useful to merge, whatever the target is. Paragraph by paragraph:
The first one gives the definition of Rossiyane and enumerates which ethnic groups live in Russia, native or not

The second is useless, comparing the term with similar terms in the world

The third is also useless, just a reiteration of the definition

The fourth gives some history, bits and pieces can be reused

The fifth is about the constitutional freedoms to declare one's ethnicity/nationality, potentially useful.
In sum, I'd support merging the little useful material we have into the Russian nationality law under a section named e.g. "Terminology" and redirect Rossiyane there. I don't think that other posters insist on merging specifically to Russians, just want to get rid (like me) of this poor article. No such user (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...in fact, it would make sense to rename Russian nationality law to Citizenship of Russia, as its scope is wider than the law itself (history, court cases, international treaties). Then the merged contents would perfectly fit. No such user (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would support doing that as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 16, 2015; 16:26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should not have been restored

As can be seen from the discussion just above, this article has been merged and should not have been restored.

@StarTrekker: It seems that you didn't see the discussion at Talk:Russians#Ethnic group ? (near the end) and therefore marked this article as reviewed.

@RuASG: It's sad that you didn't reply to me at that talk page and that you didn't self-revert. Instead you added text based on a non-neutral primary source. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You read German and Spanish. Please carefully read the versions of this article in these languages. _ruASG⁺¹ 06:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus in the above discussion was clear. You are free to start a new discussion. Please remember that edit warring can lead to a block. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Yes my bad I was not aware of this consensus.★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]