Talk:Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Article splitting into Occupation and MCA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was no consensus in this discussion. No one officially casted a vote after more than three weeks, although several editors indicated their opinions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

---

I would divide the article (and articles about the Kherson and Kharkov regions) into two: 1) military occupation by the armed forces. 2) the occupation administration (puppet government) within this military occupation.

"Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast" - an article about the control, capture of cities by Russia, as well as the military commandant's office in these cities. article "Zaporizhzhia Oblact Military–Civilian Administration" - an article about the government, the executive authority in these territories (in the near future, probably, the government of Zaporozhye / Kherson regions as part of Russia)

Of course, these two articles are closely related, but the article "Russia" is not combined with "Mishustin's Cabinet". Military occupation is still not identical to the Civil (albeit nominally) government.

I would like to ask your opinion about splitting this article into two. PLATEL (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It is debatable whether these are distinct topics, or whether it serves readers to split this into a bunch of articles. These are already subordinate to a main article Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. Have a look at the criteria for splitting in WP:SPLIT. —Michael Z. 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to split these articles. The military-civilian administration is not a significant entity. It is just the framework that Russia has created to govern the territory that it has occupied. Once the occupation ends, the military-civilian administration ends too. One cannot exist without the other, hence they belong together in one article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better and easier for Wikipedia readers to just have a single article about both aspects (occupation and administration), as they will not have to be going back and forward between articles to fully understand the event. Instead, I propose that a sub-article be made about the military occupation that ocurred before the establishment of the administration; the "background". And maybe do an article (if it hasn't been made yet) of the battle, operation, etc. behind the occupation? Magnetizedlion27 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Bad idea. We have one article about oblast and occupation. So it will be the same for the administration. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Putin recognizes independence of Zaporizhzhia oblast

Hi Currently, Zaporizhzhia oblast is a puppet state recognized by Russia. Should we change the infobox? [1] Panam2014 (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today they will annex it, no reason to even bother. Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

5 days later, the federation council only now approved the annexation act.

it still hasn't gone in effect (it probably will tomorrow) Iceylore (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that reliable sources recognize it as any kind of state, or ever will. The Russian parliament is likely to ratify the attempted annexation next week, and then we can see if sources begin to refer to it differently. —Michael Z. 20:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed it into military administration if that's fitting. Beshogur (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Removing the RfC template as this is already moot. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Move the infobox somewhere below

So we have two things. Russian occupation and Russia's defunct military councils. This can confuse some users. So the occupation continues, however those two councils are defunct, and created as oblasts by Russia. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What councils are defunct? Putin signed annexation treaties with the civil-military governors he appointed and now says they’re in Russia. As far as I know the organizations have not changed.  —Michael Z. 01:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I mean they're technically "turned" into oblasts (as they claim) with the annexation. So the council doesn't exist anymore. See those websites where they call it oblasts since the annexaiton. Beshogur (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m still not clear. Do you mean that the Russian occupation authorities now call themselves an “oblast council” instead of a “military–civil administration,” or something? We should use what reliable sources say (see #Occupation administration, below). I’ve only looked at the couple of sources below, but their usage implies that we should not use “military–civil administration” without quotation marks.  —Michael Z. 16:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Occupation administration

Should it be Military-Civilian Administration and not Occupation administration?

One of the three categories present on this wiki is Occupation administration. I do admit that occupation is used a lot more than MCA, but I would think that the naming of Military-civilian administration would fit better than Occupation administration. It was run by a basis of an installed "civilian"-government with legislature & departments under the wing of a military command rather than a de-centralized territory inferred by the broad word of occupation. Category accuracy-wise, the specific terminology used for its governance is Military-Civilian Administration, not Occupation administration. I also would think that this would be more specific to the contents within this category and would still retain the neutrality of the page.

Moreover, I bring up this question, as this category name is also based on wording used in the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast Wikipedia page. Seen here, concerning the same contents. Thus standardization? By using MCA instead of OA, It would be easier, simpler, and quick for Wikipedia readers to identify and read its contents after switching articles; and also instantly differ it from the Occupation category above it.

Any thoughts? Kaliper1 (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Edit/s to this comment: Wording (change to Within)

By “categories” it sounds like you mean the main section headings. I think “Occupation” refers to the act or process of occupying the territory. “Occupation administration” refers to the Russian-installed leadership and organization.

The term “military-civil administration” is only used in two cited sources: one an unreliable primary source (a website of the Russian occupation forces), and by the BBC, where it is consistently used in quotation marks and not in the source’s own voice. BBC also makes it clear that the so-called “MCA” is probably subordinate to the military, and in its own voice refers to the “occupation authorities,” “occupation,” and “occupiers.” Also “collaboration administration,” but not “occupation administration.”

We should follow the reliable sources, and not adopt the occupiers’ language when the sources explicitly refuse to do so. It’s a military occupation. —Michael Z. 16:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Another example, ISW (October 1)[2] writes “Russian Zaporizhia Oblast occupation administrator Vladimir Rogov accused Ukrainian forces of intensifying shelling against Enerhodar and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.” —Michael Z. 16:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The administrations aren't defunct, they are just renamed

I've done your work for you. The administrations have been renamed to "oblasts" and have been annexed by Russia. The administrations are still de facto the same as they were before, just with new clothing. It's the same with the DPR, the LPR, and Kherson Oblast. Same person, different clothes. If I took off my yellow jacket and put on a blue jacket, I would still be Jargo Nautilus in a jacket either way. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The 5th French republic is still the same France as the 4th republic, why do they get separate articles and not this? Fishchaircan (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained below, it's because the 4th French Republic actually existed. On the other hand, Russia's self-proclaimed federal subjects in Ukraine's territory are wholly unrecognised by the international community. By the way, the concept of "international recognition" (including de facto states) didn't really even exist prior to the 20th century (1900s). In the past, most countries didn't have international recognition, because the world was a lot more insular back then, and many communities and civilizations didn't have contact with one another due to the lack of globalization. The League of Nations was the first significant international community, and it later evolved into the United Nations. Hence, in the contemporary era, we've had the authority of initially the LoN and later the UN for determining which countries and political entities are recognised or not. Such a mechanism never really existed in the past. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

yeah but Articles like Transnistria arent called "Russian Occupation of Pridnestrovia" Even though Russian troops are in the region and Transnitria acts like a Russian puppet state. And Transnistria is not recognised by the international community.

Take another example. the LON did not recognise Germany's occupation of Poland in WW2. Yet Separate Articles exist for their Military Administration they had in the region (from the start of the invasion in occupied regions) to the Creation of the General Government.

The General government has its own wiki page distinct from the Military administration, even though they were "the same administration with different clothing" because they were both subservient to Germany and the German military. I can go on with example if that is what you wish. Fishchaircan (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria is obviously different from Russia's territorial claims in Ukraine. The main distinction is that Transnistria portrays itself as an independent sovereign state (although it has a desire to join Russia). Transnistria is generally classified on Wikipedia as a "state with limited recognition" (or "de facto state", "self-declared state", "breakaway state", etc). On the other hand, Russia's claims in Ukraine are simply a territorial dispute (list).

As for Poland (which, please link the articles you are talking about) -- Occupation, Military Admin, Civil Admin, General Government. Firstly, these are events that occurred over 70 years ago, whereas the situation in Ukraine is currently still ongoing and only really began in 2022 (in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts). Secondly, the situations in Poland are heavily detailed by reliable secondary sources. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure that Polish people themselves appreciate the existence of these articles in order to highlight the crimes that were committed by Nazi Germany against their country (and against Jews living there). In the present day, Nazi Germany has been defeated, but some people continue to deny the atrocities, so having a whole bunch of articles explicitly detailing the history is beneficial for the Poles and detrimental to the denialists. These articles don't attempt to portray the Nazi administrations as legitimate; on the contrary, these entities are depicted as wholly illegal and criminal. On the other hand, if we were to create some articles about Russia's administrations in Ukraine in the present day, they would undoubtedly serve to portray the Russian propaganda narrative of its claims in the region. So, if you want to create some articles about these administrations, I would advise you to wait until Russian forces are completely expelled from the region and Vladimir Putin is tried at The Hague. Only then can we truly draw comparisons. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Rule break; renaming request

See Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#NPOV Rule break; renaming request. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Oblast

Why was the page about the Zhaphorizha and Kherson Oblast as part of russia deleted? As far as I understand the Military-Civilian Administrations have been dissolved and the regions incorporated into Russia so a page should've been created for that.

Furthermore, I don't understand why the pages for the Luhansk and Donetsk PR as republics within Russia have been deleted. The previous entities have been dissolved and shouldn't be in the same article in my opinion. Anyone can tell me why those pages were deleted? 2A02:2F08:861B:2700:E99E:E9B9:4B50:F96C (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast have not been incorporated into Russia in reality. This is simply a fiction of the Russian government, and one that is likely not to last for an extended period of time. --> WP:RECENTISM WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTNEWS

Secondly, the DPR/LPR before and after being annexed by Russia are the same entities. Legally, there is no distinction in the eyes of the international community. Again, the distinction is merely a fiction of the Russian government and of the self-proclaimed authorities. Internationally, the DPR and the LPR were never recognised in the first place, and they have always been regarded as Russian puppet states. After being annexed by Russia, they are still regarded as Russian puppet states, although they now claim to be constituent parts of Russia rather than separate sovereign countries.

We had several lengthy Articles for Deletion discussions about why these articles should be deleted. The debate was contentious, but the argument for deletion ultimately won out, based on some of those policies that I've mentioned above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Showing De Facto control has always been part of Wikipedia, its why the Taliban flag is Used in the Afghanistan article and not the Islamic Republic flag. I personally do not agree with Russia's Annexations, and I believe many others feel the same, however in the eyes of the Russian government, these regions are no longer Miltary-Civilain Administrations, but Oblasts of Russia. The Kingdom of Italy and the Current Italian Republic have different articles because there has been a change in title. It shouldn't be any different here. We can still refer to them Occupied regions, because that's what they are, under military occupation by a foreign power claiming a different government, but this invading power sees this land as part of its territory, not a temporary occupation, and a separate article should reflect this. Fishchaircan (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"Showing De Facto control has always been part of Wikipedia..." - Do you have a source for this? I don't think this statement is true in the slightest. Most of the territorial disputes that are displayed in info-box maps on Wikipedia have the distinction of being old, and sometimes very old. For example, the dispute over the sovereignty of Taiwan is practically ancient (not actually though), being traced back all the way to 1895 when Japan annexed Taiwan via the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The modern PRC claim to Taiwan can be traced back to the establishment of the PRC in 1949, which is still relatively old. As per WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NOTNEWS, a distinction has to be drawn between long-existing territorial disputes such as Taiwan and very recent territorial disputes such as Russia's claims to several parts of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As for the situation with the Taliban in Afghanistan, that is wholly different from a territorial dispute, and it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The Taliban took over 100% control of Afghanistan, and the country of Afghanistan has always been internationally recognised as a sovereign state, regardless of which regime/government is in control of the country. The Taliban regime is currently still internationally unrecognised, but Afghanistan's status as a sovereign state has not changed one bit. Hypothetically, if the Taliban only controlled 80% of Afghanistan (including Kabul, the capital) while the Republican government controlled 20%, it would be a much more contentious issue to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, even with control of the capital. However, the fact that the Taliban has taken over 100% of the country means that the Republican government has for all intents and purposes collapsed. At the present time, the Republican government is a government-in-exile, still existing as a legal entity, but maintaining zero control over the territory that it claims.

In the situation of Russia's annexations of parts of Ukraine, Russia indeed does control 100% of the Crimean Peninsula, including the (Autonomous) Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, but these territories are ultimately still just subdivisions of Ukraine, which means that Ukraine still contests the annexation and has a valid platform from which to do so (i.e. controlling 80% of Ukraine's internationally-recognised territory). If Russia controlled 100% of Ukraine, then it would be a different story, because then Ukraine would be a government-in-exile, just like the Republican government of Afghanistan. Indeed, this was originally Russia's intention in the conflict; Russia initially intended to overthrow the Kyiv administration and install a Russia-friendly puppet regime. However, this goal was thwarted early into the war, so Russia changed its objective to merely taking 15% of Ukraine's territory (on top of Crimea). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia was very quick to recognise the Taliban's takeover of 100% of Afghanistan because it seems that the consequences of this geopolitical change are permanent. Even though a pro-Republic resistance movement still exists, its powers have been greatly diminished, and it has very little hope of retaking control of the country without external support. It is highly unlikely that outside countries such as the United States will want to return to Afghanistan and re-establish the Republican government, considering that they already spent 20 years trying and failing to do this (why would you beat a dead horse?).

On the other hand, Ukraine has a very good chance of retaking control of the 20% of its territory that is occupied by Russia. Ukraine is in a very good position to win the war in its entirety, and we cannot recognise Russia's claims on Wikipedia before the war has drawn to a stable conclusion. Doing so would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as I have mentioned above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

We cant predict the Future. I guess what you are saying is that it needs time in order to get confirmation and sources, to be sure of? Look i get it, it just rustles my feathers because i feel like it doesn't reflect the on the ground reality. By no means have Russia really intergrated their illegally annexed regions to be considered Oblasts even in the Russian government's imagination. But something has certainly changed in these regions from before and after 30 Sep. It confirms russian designs on the regions and they will attempt to integrate them more closely because of these illegitimate elections. Unless of course they are stopped.

My apologies, but i, like you worry about wikipedia and how it can effet our understanding of current issues. Fishchaircan (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We simply aren't able to portray the "reality on the ground" because there is no stable reality at the moment. The situation is constantly fluctuating, and something that we write today may very well change tomorrow. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We should not be reporting on the exact details of every single tiny change that goes on every single day in this war (except in the actual articles that are detailing the war itself). In these articles that have much broader topic scopes, we must rely primarily on consistent information from reliable sources. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Italy and the Current Italian Republic have different articles because there has been a change in title. It shouldn't be any different here. - Along with most of the other things you've said, you've scored the bullseye for stating something that is incredibly incorrect. For there to be a "change in title" of a certain country, that change in title has to be internationally recognised, with the exception of historical entities that (1) preceded the creation of the United Nations and (2) are explicitly described by reliable secondary sources.

In the eyes of the international community, there has been no official change in the title of Ukraine's oblasts that are occupied by Russia because the Russian government has no legal jurisdiction in Ukraine's sovereign territory. Due to the creation of the United Nations and other international mechanisms, it is possible to determine which entities and governments are recognised or not by the international community, whereas doing so in the past was often nearly impossible. Furthermore, the fact that these "annexations" (declared) by Russia have occurred only very recently (within the past month!) means that there hasn't been enough time for anyone to create any reliable secondary sources about the matter (per WP:RECENTISM), and the situation is also very unstable, with Russia's control in these regions being temporary at the present time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There should be distinctions in how it is referred to by different parties. Eg: "Kherson oblast Ukrainian territory, International community considers it Ukraine, Ukraine refers to as Temporarily Occupied. Meanwhile Russia considers it their oblast, previously a military-civilian administration, widely condemned by International community, Etc." Fishchaircan (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction... The distinction is inside of this article. As you can see in the introduction and in the info-box, it is said that Russia refers to its administration of Zaporizhzhia Oblast as "Zaporozhye Oblast", and regards the oblast as having been annexed. We don't need to create an entirely new article to detail Russia's claims. That would be a WP:POVFORK. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

TLDR, in the eyes of the International community, there has been no official change in title of Ukraine's oblasts occupied by russia, in the eyes of russia, their has, they are illegitimate. Shouldnt a seperate article or disclaimer or note or info box or anything relfect this? there is a Taiwan,China and a Taiwan (ROC) page. there is a "Republic of Korea Northern Provinces" page and a DPRK North Korea page

the same applies in more recent conflicts. I get it, the stuff is new and needs to be revised, but i suggest to the Team who have access to editing this page to consider making a seperate article. Fishchaircan (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your comparisons with Taiwan and Korea are not helpful. Both of these cases are unique because both entities in both sides of the conflict have widespread recognition (though, Taiwan's recognition is largely "unofficial").

North Korea and South Korea are both member states of the United Nations, and it is widely understood that they both claim to represent the entire Korean Peninsula, which has been the reality for the past 70+ years. Additionally, it is quite obvious that both of them are the successor states to the Korean Empire, prior to its occupation by Japan.

Meanwhile, Taiwan's situation is of a sui generis nature for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the government of Taiwan, which calls itself the "Republic of China", is effectively a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949), whereas the PRC (China's current government in the mainland) was created in 1949 and is therefore the "successor state" (claimed). From the perspective of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC is comparable to the Republican Afghanistan, except that the ROC managed to retain control of a sizeable piece of territory (i.e. Taiwan and a few small islands), whereas the Republican Afghanistan completely collapsed. On top of this, the political status of the island of Taiwan itself is made more complex by the fact that Taiwan was ruled by Japan for fifty years. Indeed, China (under the Qing dynasty) ceded Taiwan to Japan (under the Empire of Japan) in perpetuity, back in 1895 with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Subsequently, Taiwan was recaptured by China (under the ROC) at the end of World War II, but the ROC's annexation of Taiwan was never internationally recognised, and, in turn, the PRC's claim to Taiwan was never internationally recognised either, with the situation currently being in a state of limbo due to the dispute between the ROC and the PRC as the legitimate government of China. In other words, due to the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War in 1945-1949, the transfer of Taiwan from Japan to China was never finalised in international law, and now there's a significant Taiwan independence movement that opposes this transfer, advocates Taiwanese nationalism, and happens to currently control the government of the Republic of China (via the DPP). Taiwan currently enjoys widespread unofficial foreign relations, but it only has official recognition from a handful of small countries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that the disputes over Korea and Taiwan stretch back over 70 years, I have a response to this point.

"Shouldnt a seperate article or disclaimer or note or info box or anything relfect this?"

Answer: We already have plenty of disclaimers, notes, and info-boxes that reflect Russia's claims to Ukraine's oblasts. The only thing that is missing is a separate article (or several of them) (note: the articles about the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic still exist and won't be deleted anytime soon). These articles previously existed, but they were promptly deleted after lengthy Articles for Deletion discussions, which I would advise you to read before engaging in unconstructive commentary in this talk page. --> AfD Kherson Oblast (Russia), AfD Donetsk People's Republic (Russia), AfD Lugansk People's Republic (Russia), AfD Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Look, despite all of this, thanks for the links anyways. Wikipedia's formatting is a bit frustrating to work through, if there was somewhere else I should have visited first, I was unaware and I apologise. 124.183.129.82 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Change article name from "Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast" to "Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Oblast"

Such change would reflect the fact Russia has incorporated Zaporizhzhia Oblast into its territory. El819 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

^ El819 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

Can someone change information about territorial (administrative and municipal) divisions of Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Oblast? https://zapgov.ru/%d0%b2%d1%80%d0%b8%d0%be-%d0%b3%d1%83%d0%b1%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%be%d1%80%d0%b0-%d0%b4%d0%be%d0%ba%d1%83%d0%bc%d0%b5%d0%bd%d1%82%d1%8b/ Lukdmi (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Updates needed

Hello, I believe updates are needed to this page.

First of all, a new administrative division has been approved like in Kherson region. Here is the decree: https://zapgov.ru/врио-губернатора-документы/указ-врио-21-у-от-03-03-2023/. There are maps there that can be used here. The part about administrative divisions should this be changed.

Secondly a new flag and coat of arms have been adopted with slight modifications. Here is the decree: https://zapgov.ru/врио-губернатора-документы/распоряжение-об-утверждении-герба-и-ф-2/. It would be good if someone would make new SVG versions based on it.

In other things I think the pages a standard should be adopted for the pages concerning the Russian occupation administrations. This page should be made similar to the one about Kherson region, so among others a table for districts and a table for the government composition etc.

I would also propose adding the map of Russia with Zaporozhye highlighted to the infobox below or above the territorial control map or next to the annexation section, as well as a section detailing the flag and coat of arms.

Also in the infobox like in the Kherson article the names of the region in in both Russian and Ukrainian with transliteration should be added. Also the name itself should be cleared up as the Zaporozhye region exists as a federal subject of Russia, but the Zaporozhye Military-Civilian Administration has not been dissolved and still exists as the official name for it's government. CactusCartocratus (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Have any Russian media reported on the new divisions? The zapgov and other occupation websites should ideally be a last resort, since they’re really inconsistent over time and it’s not clear who runs them. HappyWith (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No Russian media has reported on them since why would they care about internal administrative borders? Also the webistes aren't the best since they're amateur but the government decrees posted there are legitimate. The zapgov and khogov websites are the official websites run by the military-civilian administrations as their mouthpieces and archives, as evidenced by the decrees of the governors mentioning them, and what I linked are the official decrees of the governors I mentioned. They are the official law as recognized by Russia. CactusCartocratus (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Zaporozhye Oblast" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zaporozhye Oblast has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 25 § Zaporozhye Oblast until a consensus is reached. HappyWith (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)