Talk:Eastern Europe Voyage Tips and guide

• Discussion about Europe hierarchy is taking place on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Old threads that used to be here were archived. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 15:19, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

The {{continentalsectionguide}} template contains magic RDF code defining Eastern Europe as a "continental section" in our geographical hierarchy. Please discuss here before deleting it. --(WT-en) Evan 14:37, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I have restored the Eastern Europe article and removed the countries that now belong to other WV regions: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova. Now, a huge amount of expansion is needed for this article to be linked to other regions. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Soumya, have you got the consensus? Some of them belong in the Baltic states, not eastern europe. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you restored this after 12 years. During the Cold War, "Eastern Europe" encompassed the entire Warsaw Pact minus the Soviet Union. The term was used that way constantly in the U.S. media, at any rate. And nowadays, we have repeatedly had users who've claimed that the former Soviet Caucasus nations are Eastern European. What are your plans for this article, and why didn't you discuss restoring it at Talk:Europe before taking unilateral action? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Soumya, if you don't mind. Let me bring you a point on why you were banned on en.wikipedia. Because of w:WP:CIR and doing controversial actions. You should try and avoid making the same mistake here again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

And I have unrestored the article. Engage in dialogue and cease your editing for now. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan Kekek here; certainly he's correct about usage during the Cold War. Pashley (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Should it get its own article, and the countries that are considered as Eastern Europe be part of Eastern Europe, but also be part of the Baltic states. I rarely use the term eastern europe and mostly just say "The Baltic States" or simply "The Baltics". But Soumya-8974 has gone and unilaterally made the change with no consensus. Pashley and I have had problems with him, with disambiguations and redirects. But this message is really for, is whether Eastern Europe have its own article? I prefer it to be part of the Baltic states, but I would like to hear the opinions of others. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, there's a discussion going on at Talk:Eastern Europe. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

If we are to have an article about Eastern Europe, we will have to discuss the diverse possible meanings of the term, as it's quite ambiguous. That said, Europe#Regions does have a currently unlinked "Eastern Europe" region at the end, which does not include the Baltic states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a Baltic states article. I get Ukraine, but I had always thought that Belarus was also part of the Baltics. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is not and I don't think it ever has been. Note that it has no Baltic coastline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Eastern Europe only has 3 countries (and two disputed territories) on our map. I don't think there is any value in making that into an article. It's like making France and Monaco an article. It's pointless. If the talk is about expanding "Eastern Europe" to make it encompass all of the former bloc, I don't think that's necessary but those who know more about Europe can decide. I'm generally against the idea of discussions and decision-making formed around appeasing trolls and users who come to cause trouble and disregard policies which this seems to have stemmed from. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, for anyone that doesn't know, Soumya-8974 is banned on the English Wikipedia for doing controversial things, just like what they did today on Eastern Europe. (And for anyone who's concerned, this is not outing) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree that someone who wants to restore the Eastern Europe article has to define the scope and answer the concerns that made us get rid of it. On a side note: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth stretched through Belarus and Ukraine from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. I don't think, though that that commonwealth should be a basis of what we call Baltic countries, East Europe, or otherwise of our hierarchy. –LPfi (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. The term is highly ambiguous, and I've heard people even say Turkey and Greece is Eastern Europe (although mostly recognized as Mediterranean countries rather than Eastern Europe, but there's still the minority.) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think that "Eastern Europe" covers what used to be behind the Iron Curtain. That was a widely understood meaning when I visited Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary etc in the 90s. Although Cold War Europe covers both east and west, Eastern Europe could be redirect to it. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I'd support such a redirect, as we wouldn't redirect Western Europe to it, right? But we should if we're being evenhanded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also Soumya-8974, can you explain what did Eastern Europe means to you? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:East Slavic nations for previous discussion.

First, here's the current region list plus one followup sentence, from the article:

Since 2014, the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are self-proclaimed unrecognized entities in eastern Ukraine with some degree of functional independence.

Keeping in mind that Wikivoyage recognizes all reasonably stable realities per Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes:

(1) Crimea is part of Russia, period, and is properly covered as such in the Russia article.

(2) Transnistria is covered in Balkans. Is there an important reason to move it?

(3) The Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are realities on the ground, and we need to cover them as independent countries, the same way we cover Abkhazia and Somaliland, not to mention Kosovo or Taiwan.

Second, because we are using the ambiguous term "Eastern Europe", which could confuse travelers and will engender complaints from users who give the term a different meaning, I think that we need to address this in "Understand" by stating that "Eastern Europe" was widely used in the West to mean all Warsaw Pact countries other than the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and that quite a few Caucasians from countries such as Armenia and Georgia consider their region to be in Eastern Europe, but that we've chosen to use it to refer to several former Soviet countries which are diverse but mainly Slavic and have important geographic, cultural and historical commonalities, though they've also been scarred by conflict, or something like that.

Third, I don't believe that Russian was the only official language of the Soviet Union. Can someone prove that? Otherwise, we should delete that statement.

Fourth, if we're going to use Cyrillic spellings for the names of cities, we should use Russian before Ukrainian for Odessa, which is a largely Russian-speaking city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

One more: Ukrainian cuisine is not the same as Russian cuisine, so stating that "Russian cuisine is the dominant culinary tradition here" is insufficient and strikes me as kind of insulting to Ukrainians. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and this shouldn't be an extra-region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with all of Ikan's concerns, except perhaps extra-region which depends on how we define the main regions for Europe; some choices there would reduce this to an extra-hierarchical region.

This needs to be either fairly extensively rewritten or just deleted. I might tackle the rewrite eventually, but likely not soon. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I did a partial rewrite that I think solves most of the issues. That needs comment & the article needs quite a bit more work. Pashley (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your work, but Russian is the primary language in Transnistria, and I'm not sure why it's important to include information about the languages and religions of countries not covered in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I took most of it out. Pashley (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I like it better now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

However, I made this edit, because I think there are at least 3 definitions of Eastern Europe other than the one we've defined: (1) the one that was standard in the U.S., which meant the Warsaw Pact minus the U.S.S.R.; (2) loosely including Yugoslavia and Albania because both were Communist, too; (3) including any of 3 groups of former Soviet republics and breakaway countries (the Caucasian republics, the Baltic states, Moldova and Transnistria). If you can make better sense out of this than I did, please go ahead, but I think the distinctions are needed. Also, I still think the breakaway regions of Ukraine should be treated as independent countries, period, with their own listings and colors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Russian was not the official language of the USSR. See w:Languages of the Soviet Union. Edited accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most of Russia's territory is in Asia. Shall we rename this region "Eastern Europe and Russia"? If not, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's a good proposal, though I am against the name Eastern Europe in the first place, because sometimes South Eastern Europe is also considered to be part of Eastern Europe as well. And as Soumya already mentioned above, he considers the Baltic States to be part of Eastern Europe as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Does my new text at Eastern_Europe#Understand nullify your objection? Pashley (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

:) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An option would be to move most of this article to some other title (but what?) & turn Eastern Europe into a disambig page. I've just written most of what the dab page would need (at Eastern_Europe#Understand); just add text pointing the renamed article & linking to its three countries. Pashley (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why are Lake Baikal and Kamchatka listed here? Both are in Russia, but neither is anywhere near Europe.

I'd delete both, but am asking first. Pashley (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

We include all of Russia as a country in Eastern Europe, but do we restrict text and listings here to the European part? I suppose so. Asian Russia is listed as a region of Asia and Lake Baikal is listed in Asia#Other destinations, so it seems there is no reason to include specifics here. A note on the confusion would be good. –LPfi (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize Asian Russia had been added to the coverage in the Asia article. In that case, I agree with covering only the European part in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it is common sense that the Asian bits of Russia aren't meant to be here, and it only takes two seconds to realize that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not really, if they weren't covered in Asia, which as I recall they didn't use to be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

They're still in "Other destinations." Any objection to removing them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deleted, preserving here.

• 571601 Kamchatka — the region of active volcanoes, geysers, mineral springs and bears walking in the streets.
• 53.51082 Lake Baikal — the "pearl of Siberia" is the world's deepest and biggest lake by volume and a remarkable destination for all who love the outdoors

Pashley (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why should we mention that x or y definition of "Eastern Europe" could include this area, when we are including the entire European area of Russia in our definition, anyway? I'd delete the mention of this region from "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wondered the same, but as the list is about "Caucasus", not mentioning the Russian part might be confusing. I now put it in parenthetically and removed the bullet. –LPfi (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

That works. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

While the scope of this article is still being worked out, I would prefer to see Transnistria as part of this region. While Transnistria is claimed by Moldova (which is part of the Balkans in our geographic hierarchy), it is functionally independent, associated with Russia, and has a distinct post-Soviet culture. /Yvwv (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

In that case, we would need to remove it from Balkans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Transnistria is still shown on most maps as being part of Moldova. The post offices sell Moldovan stamps since Transnistria is not part of the Universal Postal Union, graduates of the University of Tiraspol go to Chisinau to get their diplomas stamped so they will be recognized elsewhere, Transnistrians carry Moldovan passports (although I think they are now eligible for Russian passports), and travellers arriving by land will mostly come from Moldova (when I visited a couple of years ago, that is, although I understand the Ukrainian border is easier than it used to be).

I don't think we should be fussing over this politically contentious issue. This is a travel guide, and the current structure works fine. Ground Zero (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

To clarify the talk section. The Slavic language family has three sub-groups: West Slavic (Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc), South Slavic (Serbian, Bulgarian, etc), and East Slavic (Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian and Rusyn). The East Slavic languages have some mutual intelligibility, and the majority languages and de facto national languages in the three countries described in this article. That said, the minority languages also deserve to be mentioned. /Yvwv (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Should we mention the trans-continental Kazakhstan in this region? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe in passing, e.g. as is done for Mongolia, and parts of Russia and China in Central Asia#Countries. Vidimian (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd say nay. Kazakhstan is almost universally considered to be a part of Central Asia, even though a tiny bit of Kazakhstan is in Europe. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it could merit a passing mention as a curiosity, but nothing more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No. K is in Central Asia. Pashley (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You mean: K is partly in Europe, which is a curiosity, which could be mentioned in Europe if it isn't already (between the lines?) in the current wordings, but Eastern Europe is a region defined by us, and doesn't cover even one bit of K? –LPfi (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kazakhstan should be mentioned in passing. It is technically part of Eastern Europe, and has an East Slavic heritage (though the country has distanced itself from Russia politically and culturally, they recently abolished the Cyrillic alphabet). /Yvwv (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not all that much of an East Slavic heritage. WP says ethnic groups are 70% Kazakh, 15% Russian & religion 69% Muslim, 17% Christian. Pashley (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article was edited to say:

"Kazakhstan is a country mainly in Central Asia, with some territory in Eastern Europe."

Does that mean we have an entity Eastern Europe that is partly described in our article Eastern Europe or does it mean that this article covers also part of Kazakhstan?

I would prefer us saying that Kazakhstan [has] some territory in eastern Europe (or just Europe), thus using the proper name exclusively for the area covered in this article, and I don't think that should include any part of Kazakhstan.

I am also a little confused by Kazakhstan and the "republics" being treated equally. The "republics" are breadcrumbed to Eastern Europe, while no part of Kazakhstan is. Should the republics be added to the map and treated as countries, as we do otherwise (since a year?)? Their borders are bound to shift, but we can use the latest stable borders, those of before the full-scale invasion.

I moved down Kazakhstan and edited a bit, to make it more clearly outside the scope.

–LPfi (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The map has Crimea coloured as part of Ukraine. Pashley (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Right now, I'm not sure it's worth the time to change that, as borders in Ukraine are subjected to flux in the war. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I don't think it's worth bothering to fix the boundaries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I didn't see this discussion before, but Sbb1413, who uploaded the map file, updated Crimea to match Russia's color per region hierarchy. I updated the file by putting Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk all in a light shade of red and color-coded this with the regionlist. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think this version is OK, but for the record: to my understanding, Putin declared all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson och Zaporizhzhia Russian territory. From Kreml's viewpoint there probably aren't any formal difference between those regions' statuses – and Ukraine regard the areas under Russian control as occupied Ukrainian territory to be taken back, including the "republics". I think we don't need to update the articles yet (other than mentioning the declaration). Anybody who wishes to visit those regions should make their own research. –LPfi (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those annexed regions seem to me such a sham, and their borders so variable, that they're not worth including at this point. I agree with you that for the exact lines between Ukrainian- and Russian-occupied territory, people need to do their own research.

I think there is a difference between the LPR/DPR and the two other de jure annexed regions in that the LPR/DPR have been operating as independent states for some time, whereas the other two are merely contested areas of Ukrainian territory. While all regions are de jure part of Ukraine, the LPR/DPR have a more separate status from Ukraine, even if that status is illegal, than the other two regions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

But Russia no longer pretends that they are independent, rather than part of Russia. I think we should now get rid of our articles on those "countries." Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the "republics" will cease to exist, but I haven't heard what will replace them. The proclaimed new Russian regions cover a lot more of Donbas than what the "republics" did or what Russia now controls. Having articles on the imaginary regions is problematic, so we would have articles on the de facto Russian-controlled area, which will not be stable until some kind of long-lasting cease-fire is in effect, and none is in sight. I think "former LPR" and "former DPR" is the closest we can get. –LPfi (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that they are also functioning as region articles. If we delete the articles entirely, we remove our region structures for the cities in the Donbas.

So I guess my question is whether the city articles including Luhansk and Alchevsk would be breadcrumbed under Russia if we deleted the LPR and DPR articles, and if so, under what subregion?

Alternatively, we could form a new region titled Russian-occupied Ukraine and include all the Russian-occupied cities within this region. However, the frontlines are changing and Crimea would be difficult to classify under this circumstance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is becoming confusing as there is a separate discussion at Talk:Russia where some different points have been suggested... --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

As per wta we want to avoid the term guide. The confusion between a written instruction or a hospitality worker might not be the foremost issue here, but we also have an issue that guide is a rating level for articles. /Yvwv (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

We use to call the mainspace Wikivoyage pages "articles" a la English Wikipedia and we even have a guideline named Wikivoyage:What is an article. However, the term sound too technical (or simply wrong) when used by Wikivoyage articles themselves, since they are not encyclopedia entries. Therefore, we should use the term "guide" in Wikivoyage "articles" themselves instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Yvwv explained it already. Thank you for the reason. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yvwv It is dangerous to travel the Ukraine, a tiny portion of Russia. Why do insist of slapping a giant red warning for all of Eastern Europe? Brycehughes (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are risks for visiting Russia and Belarus as well. Many governments give caution about travelling to these countries. /Yvwv (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you genuinely think you would personally risk non-obvious life or limb by visiting virtually anywhere in Russia and Belarus? If so, honest q, how? Brycehughes (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Due to my opinions, I would probably be sent to prison as soon as I set foot in Russia. /Yvwv (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, with all respect, I don't think that's a reason to put a non-obvious-threat-to-life-or-limb warning box at the top of an article discussing an extremely large portion of the world. There are many many places where I'm sure both your opinions or my opinions, expressed loudly enough, would get us sent to prison. Much of the world is a convoluted, illiberal place, however this website serves all of it. Is there a compromise where we could at least move this into the Stay Safe section as opposed to the article lede? Brycehughes (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

During the last 24 months, political oppression in Russia has increased dramatically. Behaviours which used to be acceptable back in 2021, can now land people in multi-year prison sentences. As the current situation is unstable and subject to change, this is the kind of situation which should be described in a warning box. /Yvwv (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Prison is not death. Many countries have f'd up laws. Let's go to RFC on this. I'd like to see the warning box removed completely, because I think it is highly specific to Ukraine (where it is well covered) and not applicable to Belarus and Russia on a life-or-death level, as the warning box docs prescribe, whereas the vast majority of Eastern Europe is extremely safe to visit. Brycehughes (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably not worth a warning for the entire EE, but if we have sections for Ukraine/Russia/Belarus, those could have some sort of warning. Piotrus (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The country pages are the primary places for warnings, and the worst dangers are avoidable for most, so the appropriate place for warnings is in Stay safe. However, as all three countries are awkward destinations for the time being, I think it is good to note the problems early. A caution box in Understand could work for that. All three countries still do need the red boxes, as for many nationalities the crack-down on unsuitable opinions in Russia and Belarus is very unobvious for European countries, and all three are subject to military action. –LPfi (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Understand is the place for it. We could have a small warning box in the Stay Safe section that refers readers to the danger-countries' articles. Brycehughes (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think somebody contemplating visiting these countries without knowing the political situation might read much of the article carefully, choosing points of interest and checking connections, to only then notice that a visit at this time might not be a good idea at all. Some note in the lead or Understand could avoid the frustration.

Yes, those that don't know the current situation might not be troubled by the non-free speech issue, but not being able to reach Ukraine from Russia and their Mastercard not working in Russia are troublesome enough for a cautionbox. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would be fine with a caution box in the Understand section. Or a warning box in the Stay Safe section. Probably not both. Brycehughes (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many countries do not have freedom of speech like the U.S. In Singapore, you could go to jail for insulting someone else's religion for instance, and we only have a note under "Stay Safe", not even a warning box for that. Even for the China article, I think a warning box is overkill, since the vast majority of foreigners who visit China are not there to topple the government, and it's generally safe if you just do the regular touristy stuff. Russia is probably a bit more of a grey area. Most of Russia is not a warzone, but some Ukrainian drones have managed to hit Moscow (though so far they have yet to result in any deaths), so that's a risk travellers ought to know about. The dog2 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ukrainian drones have hit many other targets in Russia, especially but not only those relatively close to the border (Rostov, Belgorod, Kursk, Voronezh, etc.), and a whole bunch of buildings in many parts of Russia have burned up under mysterious circumstances. I think Russia is somewhat of a war zone and merits a warning in that respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Something to consider is the risk of being conscripted into the Russian army. From my quick search this affects people with dual citizenship: https://tass.com/defense/1536489 etc. That said, weird similar stuff like this happens elsewhere (read this reddit on korea if you care). Not sure if this merits a warning somewhere... Piotrus (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're not going to get conscripted into the Russian Army if you visit Eastern Europe. Come on. Brycehughes (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, sure, I meant, do we mention this somewhere on pages for Russia and like. Piotrus (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which is perfect. But not here, Eastern Europe. Brycehughes (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd keep the warning. I just checked & Canada says "avoid all travel" for all three countries. Pashley (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

UK says the same. Pashley (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The warning box is not just for the risk. It is for the unpredictable situation in all three countries. Russia had an attempted coup d'état some months ago, and Ukraine's army has made assalts into Russia proper. More changes will come, so the warnings will probably need an update within the next months again. /Yvwv (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pashley Of course the UK and Canada say that. We are not representatives of the UK and Canada. We need to be a little smarter than that, or at least try to be. I promise if you visit Russia you will be absolutely fine. Brycehughes (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My friend, your promise is worth exactly as much as both of us were paid to post here. If you want to be crazy and visit Russia, you should at least be warned that you could be subject to arbitrary arrest or get caught in some violence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It depends on where you are in Russia. Ukrainian drones and missiles do not have the range to hit Vladivostok and Khabarovsk, so those places will probably be safer than Moscow and Saint Petersburg. But certainly some warning about the possibility of being killed or injured by Ukrainian drones in warranted. And there was an incident when a Ukrainian saboteur managed to blow up a railway line in Siberia, so that's a risk that needs to be considered too. The dog2 (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ikan, what arbitrary violence is this? Are you or I, the typical tourist, going to march around with pro-Nalvany signs? I might shoot myself in the foot here, but could you do that in Malaysia? Just get there and then march with pro-opposition signs, as a tourist? Most countries don't accept this. Also agree with The dog2. Brycehughes (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Foreigners who didn't carry opposition signs have been arrested in Russia. The last time I was in Malaysia was 2003. Lots of Malaysians, especially Malays, were very angry at the U.S. for the aggression against Iraq. I told them I also opposed it, hated Bush and voted against the Republicans. They said: "We understand. We always vote for the opposition." Malaysia is just not comparable to Russia under Putin. And as for violence, Russia is at war. The dog, I believe I recall things catching fire in Vladivostok, too. If you visit Russia, you might want to steer clear of recruitment offices, factories, and maybe some big shopping centers and cars with "Z" and other such symbols on them, as they seem to have a greater chance of blowing up or going down in flames. Also, avoid taking any passenger airplanes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Ikan, but when was the last time you visited Russia? This is all just speculation. Ah yes, they're bad because my government says they're bad. I have my personal opinions on Russia and I'd be reasonably confident that they'd match yours. But that's politics. Re travel: meh. Brycehughes (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been to Russia, but the reports and video of things burning down and blowing up and people being arrested are not made up. If you don't think at least domestic airplane travel in Russia should get a warningbox, wow... Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, I really don't. Ok (bring the spirit of WhatamIdoing, bring the spirit of WhatamIdoing, I'm not going to swear), I'm just going to kindly move this warning box down to Stay Safe. It's the only way things get done here. Brycehughes (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

How many incidents do there need to be. You think we have to wait for the inevitable calamitous plane accident to warn people about the dangers of domestic air travel in Russia? Have you been keeping track of the recent incidents? Moreover, you should not take unilateral action without consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh god i give up. If you really think there should be a big fat warning box on Eastern Europe then you get a big fat red warning box on Eastern Europe. Great, helpful, helpful, danger kids. Brycehughes (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't give up: try to convince a consensus. If I were the only one who was against your edit, it would be adopted by consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand consensus and I also give up. Big fat warning box on Eastern Europe it is. Ha. Brycehughes (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The point of a warning box is that it is temporary, and should be reconsidered once a year or so. By late 2024, the situation will probably be different from now. /Yvwv (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hahahahaha yep I'm sure. Brycehughes (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, errr, why no big fun warning box at Russia? Piotrus (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah good point. We're fun lovers here. Brycehughes (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Eastern Europe has a big fat warning box. This is really embarrassing. Ikan you had a chance to impose some authoritah but you didn't, instead you went for process. Oh beware traveler to Eastern Europe of all places, it's just so stupid. Beware the food too, it ain't great. Brycehughes (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikis work on consensus. That's basic. I don't have individual authority to override consensus, nor does anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but wikis have been around for 20 years now. I think most of us on this thread know how they work. Brycehughes (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's a proposal for the Russia article. Let's have the warning box, but explain that the risk from drone strikes is higher the closer to the Ukrainian border you get, and lower the further east you go. It's objectively true that Ukrainian drones have managed to hit Moscow but not Vladivostok. As for these explosions, certainly they should be covered. Some of them have been linked to Ukraine. Putin tends to be more popular among older people than the youth, and the Ukrainians have managed to recruit some Russian opposition youth to conduct assassinations of journalists who support the invasion. You won't be targeted as a tourist, but people have been injured by being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The dog2 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I support this, but I think we should also warn that flying domestically in Russia may be dangerous because of the lack of spare parts and good maintenance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek has anyone actually died from this? Feels like we're speculating, stepping outside our bounds. Brycehughes (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have to wait until the disaster before warning? The incidents have been recorded; they are not speculating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a matter of proportionality. I don't have a list of list of tourist-deaths in Russia, but I'm sure that even if a Boeing or Airbus went down in the next few weeks, air accidents would still be extremely low on the list. I know that the warning box is for non-obvious danger, but it really feels like we're emphasizing the non-obvious vs the danger. I'd say we should instead do a caution box, as a compromise, but every editor seems to hate those for some reason. Brycehughes (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an expert, but I tend to think a warningbox is not needed for passenger air travel, probably anywhere in the world. Anywhere that passenger airlines are flying, the risk is too low to merit it. I think this is even true in places with comparatively poor aviation safety standards like North Korea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree. You're far more likely to die in your taxi ride from the airport virtually anywhere. Brycehughes (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply