This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Neutral As the nominator, I am neutral on the location of the list, but the list should exist somewhere. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE this discussion followed WP:BRD, reverting the BOLD redirection and opening this discussion, but the person who removed the navigation list clearly doesn't want to discuss things over, since he deleted [2] the discussion here. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RM is not the correct venue for determining this matter. There are no other "Crimean crises" that are known as the "Crimean crisis", and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clearly the 2014 crisis. The "dab" was created by disruptive user Nickst, who also created associated "Crimean crisis" redirects to go along with it. None of the redirects are valid, and none are extant in RS. They are total OR. The only one that should exist is Crimean crisis, and this needs to be remedied at once. I've now removed the links to prove the point. None of the linked articles are titled "Crimean crisis" anything, and hence this dab or potential set index is entirely invalid. Please stop this nonsense and restore the redirect. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article you chose to call "Crimean crisis" is not actually titled that way on Wikipedia. So your choice isn't the the Crimean crisis either. This is an RM because it is the proper venue to decide if your choice of primary topic is the primary topic, since the page will be moved if it is, so making a redirect (your preferred option) happen after the page is moved. Nevertheless, other pages are bluelinks with "Crimean crisis" as part of their pagenames. All these are redirects, including the page you chose to leave on the list. The argument that the article is the only one called "Crimean crisis" is wrong, since your choice isn't called that either. It's called "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" which clearly does not contain "Crimean crisis" anywhere in the title. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. However, the only one of these that RS referred to as the "Crimean Crisis" is the 2014 event, hence WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status. However, you are right about that, which is even more proof that there should be no disambiguation page. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's no longer a disambiguation page. The term "Crimean crisis" is unreferenced in the target article. Hence, why this is a requested move so if you claim that the 2014-etc event is primary topic, the list gets displaced. Show me some proof nothing else is called "Crimean crisis" because Google Book Search certainly does not show that. It shows several Crimean crises.[3] ; The list is certaintly incomplete, because there have been many crises, and they have been called "Crimean crisis". -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has been only one event termed "Crimean Crisis" in present history books. There have been other Crimean crises, but only one "Crimean Crisis". Google Books does not show anything other than what I just said. There is no list, as none of the other events were ever termed Crimean Crisis, and even if they were, because the articles are not titled as such, no ambiguity problem exists. RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your article isn't called "Crimean crisis" anyways, so there is no ambiguity with this article doing something else, by that standard. By that standard your article doesn't need to be listed either, since it's page also isn't titled "Crimean crisis". That isn't even the standard used for Disambiguation Pages, since many topics have multiple names, and they appear on Disambiguation Pages due to that fact, despite the name actually chosen for their respective articles. Regardless, this is not a disambiguation page anymore, so that's out the window. Google Books does show other 'Crimean crisis' points in history. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shows other events labeled "crisis", but no others labelled "Crisis". RGloucester — ☎ 04:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, by the way, it doesn't matter if there have been other crises in Crimea. Those should not appear here. Only events TITLED "Crimean Crisis" by RS should appear here, and only one is titled such in the history books. RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a dab would not list every event that was a "crisis" in "Crimea", only events referred to by RS specifically as the "Crimean Crisis". There is only one event so-titled by RS. The others are totally invalid. RGloucester — ☎ 04:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "choice" of a Crimean crisis is unreferenced in its article, so by your standard, should not be listed either, because no RS was provided there. But since you keep deleting things I can't even work on improving this page to fix the problems you perceive. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources in the relevant article, but anyone who hasn't had their head in the ground would know that that event was and is commonly called "Crimean Crisis" at the time it occurred, prior to the annexation. Here is one example, here is another. You won't find any such sources for any of the other so-called "Crimean crises", because none of those were ever termed "Crimean Crisis". RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A request has been made for a third opinion, but it appears that other editors who have been involved in the history of this disputed page are being pinged, so this is not a Third Opinion request. I would suggest that a formal Request for Comments be used in order to publicize the issue, attract other editors neutrally (e.g., via Legobot), and get formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: There are probably more editors watching this page than have bothered to voice their opinion as regards the proposed move. The TITLE has been discussed on the article this redirects to, as well as on multiple articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine. For myself, I can only say that I'm tired of wasting my time even responding to such proposals and suspect that I speak for other regular editors when I say that this is a WP:BRD non-starter. Per RGloucester's arguments, RS refer to this event as being the 'Crimean crisis' in an unparalleled manner. The WP:BURDEN is on the IP proposing the change in nomenclature to bring RS to the table refuting this incident as being the defining singular use of 'crisis'. I'm unaware of any other incidents that even come close to this one in terms of general exposure and global recognition. Whether or not perceptions will change in the future can be addressed at a 'when/if' juncture at which it actually becomes an RS issue. More to the point, the issue is being used as a method to deflect from 'Annexation of Crimea by the RF', and we've had about all we can take of these attempts to game the system. I fail to see that an RfC would be anything other than a waste of editor time and energy, and would suggest that the IP drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, they just won't give up. Why hasn't the IP been blocked for disruptive editing? They've all but exhausted every appeal mechanism available and still continue hitting the time-wasting "wall". It just begs the question of how bad the infamous troll factory is pushing them... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
