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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is very clearly opposed by many community members. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea → Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea – unrecognized republic of Russia, like Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast Panam2014 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• comment this is more in line with Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic a move should consider if the current titles of all three are appropriate—blindlynx 14:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Blindlynx: DNR/LNR is the WP:COMMONNAME not here. Panam2014 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• We already have Russian occupation of Crimea. CMD (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: it is not a problem. Russian occupation of Crimea article is about Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea+Sevastopol. And this article (Republic of Crimea) is about Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea only. Panam2014 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Articles differing by ~3% of content are definitely not ideal. CMD (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: Russian occupation of Crimea could be used as a main article. Like Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine with Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. But it is a problem to use official name for occupied Crimea but not for occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. Panam2014 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Again, that would be an essentially identical article. It is not a problem for articles to be different if they cover different topics. CMD (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: the topic is the same. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is both about occupation and Russian administration not only about military occupation. There are no reason to have an article Republic of Crimea without talking about the occupation. We could move this article then merge it with Russian occupation of Crimea and keep the Infobox settlement. For example, Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast have been merged into Donetsk People's Republic. Panam2014 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to propose a merge, that's a different discussion. For now, this is an RM, and the proposed move effectively duplicates an already existing article title to no clear gain. CMD (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: I want to merge and move so it is not a problem to move first then merge. And if we merge we should move in a second time. So it is not necessary for now to ask for a merge or ask for a move in second time. Panam2014 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why move twice instead of merging first and the moving only once? Super Ψ Dro 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose. This is an article about an administrative unit, one that has a flag, coat of arms, anthem, government, and so on. Your proposed title is/would be about an act of military occupation. It's nothing wrong to have articles about military occupations (e.g. Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), but they must be kept separate from articles about administrative units (e.g., Iraq). — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources do not seem to say anything about this anthem, and so on. Including it here is just repeating Russian advocacy of this occupation regime as a real administrative subdivision of Russian land, which is false. Doing so is not encyclopedic or following the sources, it is non-NPOV and Righting Great Wrongs.

  They must be kept separate? Says who?  —Michael Z. 13:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed per kashmiri's reasoning. Killuminator (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri and Killuminator: it is false. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is about the administrative unit too. Panam2014 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: it is not a wrong. Panam2014 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote: "unrecognised republic of Russia". I'm sorry but countries (governments) are not in a business of "recognising" administrative units. In international law, countries can recognise only other governments (technically, other governments' jurisdiction over a given territory). However, international recognition is unrelated to the internal administrative division. Therefore Wikipedia tends to have articles on all the administratige divisions de iure (since they are notable), even if only one party exerts a de facto control. So we have both Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Taiwan Province, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: it is recognized by UN as a part of Ukraine. See General Assembly votes and UN's map of Ukraine. Panam2014 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Show me a UN source please. As far as I know, the UN is not in a business of recognising administrative units. Off-topic: the UN doesn't even have powers to recognise countries. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] Panam2014 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The passage talks about territories (actual land), not about administrative entities (a legal construct). Besides, you wrote about the UN, and I've asked for a UN source. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Besides, UNGA resolutions are not binding on anyone. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 Panam2014 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It's nonbinding, too. Meaning, it's not law. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The Russian “republic” is defined as tied, “legally” in the Russian constitution, to land where Russia’s constitution has no jurisdiction or right. This has received international non-recognition and condemnation. What Russia calls the “Republic of Crimea” is actually legally the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the UN has explicitly said so.

The UNGA called upon members “not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.”[2]

The violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international integrity is definitely a crime against international law.

Is his all directly relevant to the question? Not sure, but it does contradict all of Kashmiri’s arguments.  —Michael Z. 13:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex: nope. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is not named Kherson Oblast (Russia) because it is an unrecognized Russian oblast. If you ask to move Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast to Kherson Oblast (Russia) it will be probably rejected. Panam2014 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Panam2014: This article isn't named Republic of Crimea (Russia). 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex: The parenthesis doesn't matter. We cannot use the official name on one side and not on the other. Panam2014 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Panam2014: Apples and oranges. We usually use the "official" names of secessionist entities. See South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Republic of Artsakh, Somaliland, Wa State, and thus Republic of Crimea. However, Kherson Oblast is de jure an occupied territory, not a secessionist entity. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex: both Kherson and Crimea are de jure Ukrainian occupied territories de facto annexed by Russia. Panam2014 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Panam2014: In the case of the Republic of Crimea, Luhansk People's Republic, and Donetsk People's Republic, those were already secessionist, unlike Kherson. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex: Crimea have been annexed on 2014. Plese read the article. And Donetsk and Luhansk on 2022. Panam2014 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  No. There is a Kherson Oblast established in Ukrainian law, and there is a Kherson Oblast established in Russian law. Even if they relate to roughly the same territory, the two are not the same thing – they have different governments, different postcodes, different area codes, different coats of arms, different official languages, etc. We're not necessarily to judge which one is more "correct"; we're just to note their existence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  And lack thereof, where applicable. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast does a poor job of both of those things, although I do not think the page structure is directly causal for this. CMD (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: if you think Kherson should be moved, let's go for a RM. We could solve the title's issue. Panam2014 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't! I think it seems an article focused on discussing the timelines, impact of, and response to the Russian invasion and occupation of that area. The article title is apt to cover these topics. What the article doesn't do is contain much about the governance and administration imposed by Russia (or lack thereof), which is the focus of this very different article. CMD (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: Precisely, the article of Kherson speaks at the same time of the occupation and the administration. And the Donetsk People's Republic article talks about both the administration and the occupation. Panam2014 (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the two articles have very different topics, which is reflected in their different structures. The administration information on the Kherson article is about five sentences (that is outside the History section, which has some relevant information but in a chronological-style format), which is substantially less than the Donetsk article, which treats it as the primary topic. This Republic of Crimea article has the topical focus and structure of the latter. CMD (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Chipmunkdavis: The articles are just not developed enough but they both refer to the Russian administration and the occupation. Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast are both redirections. Panam2014 (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  This goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV. In most regions, Wikipedia has impartial articles about administrative entities and describes them how they are, not how they should be. We have articles about administrative entities titled East Jerusalem, not Israeli-occupied Jerusalem; Northern Cyprus, not Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus; Republic of Arthsakh, not Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan; Diego Garcia, not British-occupied Mauritius; and so on. Unfortunately, a bunch of editors have pushed for Wikipedia not to have articles about Russian-created administrative units in the territories it conquered, and instead keep pushing countless articles about military occupation. While the war timeline in itself is an important topic for an encyclopaedia, and there's not doubt that Russia is the invader here, the purge of impartial articles about administrative units created by the invader is inexplicable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Kashmiri, IMHO none of the examples you mentioned is really comparable. The Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine is a more blatant violation of international law and treaties signed by Russia than any of your examples. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Rsk6400: what is your opinion about RM? Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, so there are degrees of "blatancy" in the violations of international law? Can you show me a source that supports your idea that Russian occupation of Crimea is "more blatant" than the Turkish invasion on Northern Cyprus, Armenian occupation of Azeri territory (with several wars in-between) or Israeli military occupation of internationally recognised territories of Palestine?

  Let me remind you strongly that Wikipedia is not advocacy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Much of this article is RGW. It’s about a Russian occupation of part of Ukraine. Decorating it with content about the Soviet deep space telescope network and national anthem is trying to legitimize it as a real administrative division of Russia, but has no relationship to reliable sources on the subject.  —Michael Z. 13:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously it's a real administrative division under Russian law, much like the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia was a real administrative division of the Third Reich, and it doesn't matter that it was a land grab. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Support (and/or merge). Arguments that renaming would create two identical articles are obviously spurious. The article subject and content don’t change by renaming: if there is a content fork that needs to be resolved, renaming doesn’t affect that. The proposed move resolves an in-WP:consistency, in treating Russian occupations and territorial claims as such, but this one as an ordinary administrative division nothing to see here.  —Michael Z. 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Support (or merge). Since we already have Crimea, this article should only cover the Russian administration and its consequences, i.e. tourism, life expectancy and similar things belong to the Crimea-article. If we reduce the article to that, why not name it properly, i.e. "Russian occupation of ...". The difference to Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia is that the name Danzig West-Prussia was only used by the German occupants, so "German occupation of Danzig West-Prussia" would make no sense. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose these moves are starting to get ridiculous. It is obvious that the current title is more easily recognizable and shorter. It already fulfills precision requirements. And we already have an article about the Russian occupation of Crimea. There is zero need or reason to perform this move other than WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

And comparison with occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts is not appropriate as those are barely existing and badly defined administrations unlike the Crimean one which has had eight years to mature and develop. To call Kherson and Zaporizhzhia just other Russian provinces, in practical terms, is pretty inaccurate, but Crimea is indeed basically just another Russian province at this point. Super Ψ Dro 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: the situation in Kherson and Crimea is exactly the same. Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast have been merged into Donetsk People's Republic and Kherson Oblast (Russia) have been deleted. Republic of Crimea have been created when we have not an article about occupation. Panam2014 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, obviously not. Crimea has been under full Russian power for nine years while "Kherson Oblast" in Russia isn't even properly geographically defined. And keep merger discussions separate from this requested move, they're separate procedures. Super Ψ Dro 20:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: It's not a question of procedure, I'm in favor of the renaming and the merger. And you haven't proven how Crimea is fully integrated. Obviously there are no difference. Panam2014 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Recognizable? Because everybody knows the differences between the seven entries in Republic of Crimea (disambiguation)?

Just another Russian province, like Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) was just another couple of provinces of Germany and the Soviet Union? Egregiously non-NPOV statements are examples of RGW. The accusation of RGW is out of line.

Fortunately there are thousands of articles about Crimea written in the last nine years, and we can easily confirm or refute assertions that they usually call it “Republic of Crimea” instead of referring to Russian occupation, or that its coverage is like just that on just other provinces.”  —Michael Z. 13:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is not an article about a human settlement. But Reichsgau Wartheland is, and is (rightly) a separate article from the one about occupation of Poland. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article is about the administrative division. Mellk (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Mellk: for Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhia the articles are both about occupation and the so called administrative division. Panam2014 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. Mellk (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your argument is not solid. It's totally comparable. Panam2014 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you just not see the different nuances that appear when comparing administrations that have existed practically unscathed for nine years with some that have existed for over one year and always on the frontline of an active war? Super Ψ Dro 15:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Backwards logic. When the Russians “annexed” land they don’t control in September 2022 they made its status exactly the same as Crimea’s, showing that the “nuance” is nothing. It is all legally occupied Ukrainian territory, all based on sham referendums, all merely empty claims imposed by force, all an imposition of Kremlin will on Ukraine, all equally fake.  —Michael Z. 13:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And “practically unscathed” is not unscathed. All five “annexed” regions and their Russian occupation régimes are now part of one war zone with varying degrees at different times and locations of kinetic warfare, of physical destruction, and of atrocity crimes.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Example: “Russia’s attempt to annex Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk has undermined its claim on Crimea.”[3]  —Michael Z. 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support for sake of consistency and per Michael Z above. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Super Dromaeosaurus and others above.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter:

  Crimea is the only region that has an article on its occupation and on the occupying administrative entity. For DNR, LNR the article evokes the occupation and the entity. And for Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Zaporizhia, this is also the case. Only the case of DNR/LNR is different from Kherson/Zaporizhia as DNR/LNR came into use per WP:COMMONNAME. What has not been demonstrated for the Republic of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  The article about occupation was created by a sock. Unfortunately it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion. Mellk (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Mellk: The majority of the sources calls the subject "occupation of Crimea" rather than "republic of Crimea". Panam2014 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  The subject is the administrative division. And the RM is for Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, not Russian occupation of Crimea. Indeed, there are only 3 results on Google for "Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Mellk (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Mellk: Republic of Crimea is practically absent from the sources. We can also merge under the name Russian occupation of Crimea or another title. Panam2014 (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are making a lot of claims about what sources say without any evidence. Mellk (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Mellk: Everything I say is verifiable. You were unable to provide reliable and centered sources evoking the Republic of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are the one requesting the move. Mellk (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Then the “sock” argument is ad hominem and irrelevant.  —Michael Z. 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, they mentioned how an occupation article exists, therefore I mentioned that a sock of someone who was topic banned for POV-pushing and then banned for using socks to evade and is a long-term abuser created the article. It exists because someone not allowed to edit created it. Mellk (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Mellk: And the article would have been recreated by another contributor. It does not change anything. Panam2014 (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  One of infinite ifs and might-haves.  —Michael Z. 14:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  As others have said already, Crimea (and Sevastopol) are the only regions which are actually administered by Russia, in the same way Russia administers others federal subjects like Kaluga Oblast, and have been administered by Russia for 9 years. Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: Apart from the front line, Russia also administers parts of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk. Panam2014 (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  As others have said already, there is a big difference between how these are administered. Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: There are only personal opinions. Both are administered and exposed to war. Panam2014 (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  The full RM here is only personal opinions. My personal opinion is that I oppose the move. Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: No, it has been shown that reliable sources do not use the term "Republic of Crimea" instead of "Russian occupation of Crimea". It's fact, not an opinion. See WP:NOTVOTE. So your opinion must be supported and argued by sources. Panam2014 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No such thing has been shown. Panam2014 has serious WP:COMPETENCE problems. Super Ψ Dro 12:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And the RM is for Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, so I am not sure why they are now mentioning "Russian occupation of Crimea" instead of "Russian occupation of Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Mellk (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk:it changes absolutely nothing, the two articles are destined to be merged. Republic of Crimea is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME. Panam2014 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This message is unfounded and was posted on my talk page by an opponent. This is unacceptable and I could have posted the same message on your page. Panam2014 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is called a contentious topics alert. There is nothing "unacceptable" about placing such an alert. For example, it says: When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation. Calling me an "opponent" is not a good idea, though. Mellk (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk: We do not place a banner on the page of a contributor with whom you disagree. See WP:NOTINVOLVED. Not arguing on the talk page and being aggressive is not a good idea. Contradictor or opponent is not problematic, the editorial conflict is real. Panam2014 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTINVOLVED is for administrators. This has nothing to do with acting as an administrator. Mellk (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk: Not just for administrators. You are not the right person to deliver this kind of message. Panam2014 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You may want to actually read the pages again. Where does it say you cannot place CT alerts if you are not the right person to deliver this kind of message? Mellk (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule is clear. Your message is unwelcome and only helps to strain the discussion. Panam2014 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Try to see it as just a notification and move on. We’ve all received them.  —Michael Z. 14:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac:His message is unwelcome since he did not send it to the other participants and before that he behaved aggressively with me. Panam2014 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Nevertheless.  —Michael Z. 14:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The other participants are already aware, either with Template:Ds/aware or they have already received an alert before. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: it have been shown. Rather than attacking me with links that have nothing to do with the discussion, just argue your position with reliables sources. Or it proves that you have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Your rhetoric is untenable, many of us agree with me with arguments @Mzajac, Rsk6400, and Volunteer Marek:. Panam2014 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding my position. I think that this should be considered with lnd/dnr as they're all related in terms of occupation etc... I have not voiced support for this move—blindlynx 13:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: In this case you can give an opinion on this case or a global opinion. It does not change anything that, compared to my opponent, wrongly invoking WP:COMPETENCE and pretending that I am alone against everyone when we are divided is problematic.. Panam2014 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have not been following this discussion closely. This probably is the venue for discussions of competence. Further, a wider discussion around the scope of this article and Russian occupation of Crimea would probably be more helpful than just a RM—blindlynx 13:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

compared to my opponent are you referring to me, Panam2014? Are you aware of WP:BATTLEGROUND? You're close to crossing several lines. Super Ψ Dro 13:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: You used WP:COMPETENCE in a completely devious way. Which doesn't hold up unless you consider that the other three contributors are just as incompetent. Definitely not, having another opinion than you does not make us incompetent. And take the example of @Kashmiri: who speaks calmly without aggressiveness. Saying that you are my opponent is not problematic. We just have opposing views. Your aggressiveness is totally inadmissible and know that it in no way intimidates me. Panam2014 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE refers to you needing to know Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly. You show a lack of understanding of policies such as WP:COMMONNAME otherwise you would not invoke them when zero effort to prove there is a common name in the first place has been made. You show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's common procedures otherwise you would not be advocating for strange and unorthodox proposals such as first renaming then merging then renaming again nor would you be mixing the process of merging articles with the one of renaming them as you've done here. You show a lack of understanding of proper Wikipedia etiquette otherwise you would understand referring to people you disagree with as "opponents" as you've done with in fact several people is not allowed. To pretend I'm trying to intimidate you is also against WP:AGF. And I have not called you nor any group of editors incompetent.

But with each comment this matters less and less. With your repeated replying to each and every single of the comments of the opposing side (WP:BLUDGEONING) you're only sabotaging your own requested move. Closers like it when there's not paragraph after paragraph and when the indentation does not cover a third to a half of the screen. But you probably weren't aware of that. At this point I will quit responding to your comments because it has become a petty back and forth. Good luck and have a happy editing. Super Ψ Dro 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: No, you are the one having the problem with WP:COMPETENCE. Republic of Crimea is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME. And you were unable to prove it with reliable sources. What's strange is that you didn't dare to question other people's skills, like @Mzajac:.I didn't sabotage anything at all the proof half of the editors agree with me. Falsely invoking WP:COMPETENCE + your aggressive behavior are problematic. And I don't confuse merging with renaming since I support both. Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kashmiri, Super Dromaeosaurus and others above. This page is about the administrative unit of the Russian Federation. The Ukraininan administrative unit is at Autonomous Republic of Crimea. More than 50% of international borders are disputed, we're here to state the de facto situation and explain the dispute in the apposite pages, not to take sides: this is a neutral encyclopedia. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021: Except that Crimea is the only entity that has its article bearing the official name apart from the People's Republic of Donetsk and the People's Republic of Lugansk, but for those two it's because it's the common name in eight years of war. Reliable sources never speak of the Republic of Crimea. And especially how to explain that Kherson and Zaporijjia do not bear the official name of the entity? Besides, regardless of how the articles are named, the articles on Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhya deal with both the entity and the occupation. As Kashmiri says, harmonizing the articles is necessary Panam2014 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Pretending that Russian aggression is one equally valid side of a dispute is not compatible with a WP:NPOV. It is a rather extreme example of a false balance. Firstly, there was no dispute before the invasion: Russia recognized Crimea as Ukraine and Ukraine’s land and sea borders in binding treaties. Secondly, there is not even a border between Crimea and Russia, there is a body of water that Russian invasion troops had to cross to enter Ukraine in 2014.  —Michael Z. 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)