Talk:Bilohirsk

Move discussion

Shouldn't this be moved to Bilohirsk?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps it should... Don Alessandro 18:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: @Don Alessandro: It certainly should not be Bilohirsk. It should be Qarasuvbazar, or maybe Belogorsk (Qarasuvbazar), but not Bilohirsk.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting, then when the article was called Karasubazar, everyone was happy. But as soon as I renamed to Belogorsk, then you immediately renamed, but not back, but to Belogirsk. It turns out as you like, if only not in Russian? Каракорум (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not support the name Belohirsk, and I am not the person who moved it back. My first choice is Qarasuvbazar, and my second choice would be a comprimise like Belogorsk (Qarasuvbazar) or Qarasuvbazar (Belogorsk). But Belohirsk makes no sense at all.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have never seen examples where the new and old names go together. Like for example Istanbul and Constantinople. It should be called Belogorsk, and in order to distinguish it from other Belogorsk, then indicating the geography, that is, Crimea. Каракорум (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

And it cannot be called Qarasubazar, since it has an official name - Belogorsk. The name should be official current, not historical. Каракорум (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The official name is rarely used and the historic name used far longer. Qarasubazar is fine.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an official name Belogorsk. Qarasubazar is an old official name until 1944. as indicated in the first line. But the article should be called by its official name. Каракорум (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoops. It does have the official name and Latin-alphabet spelling Білогірськ/Bilohirsk, and the “official” but internationally unrecognized name Белогорск (does the Russian Federation have official romanized names?). The USBGN database gives approved name Bilohirs’k, variants Belogorsk, Karassu Basar, Karasu, Karasubazar, and Karasubozar, and non-roman script Білогірськ. Google advanced search result for "bilohirsk" crimea and other variations on English-language web pages yields the following number of results for me: Karasu 142, Karasubazar 134, Belogorsk 91, Qarasuvbazar 83, Bilohirsk 60, Bilogorsk 51, Qarasubazar 49, Bilogirsk 47, Belohorsk 40, Karasuvbazar 25, Karassu Basar 16, Karasubozar 16 (remember the real total only appears on last results page). Google and Apple maps display Bilohirsk/Bilohirs’k. This place is rarely mentioned in English, and apparently somewhat often misspelled.

Karakorum, maybe stop moving and editing until there’s a consensus identified. In any case, stop writing “Bilogorsk” in the article, because that doesn’t follow any romanization standard. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 16:20 z

I did not write “Bilogorsk” I wrote Belogorsk, which you called one of the variants - "Belogorsk 91". Каракорум (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You wrote “Bilogorsk” and it’s still in the current version. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 17:07 z

Like I've been saying for a while - since nobody can agree if it's Bilohirsk or Belogorsk, how about we just call it Qarasuvbazar?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Article title

A recent edit summary reads “unless and until this goes through a successful move request to that name, usage in the article should match the title.” But the title’s been changed a number of times recently, without any move requests. The last stable name was Qarasuvbazar. Per WP:UAPLACE place names in Ukraine are named according to the official name, with romanization per WP:UKR, so that would be Bilohirsk. I have read many editors complaining that foreign countries should not dictate our English-language naming, so can we presume that no one wants to use the Russian name Belogorsk, imposed by an occupying power after the start of the attempted annexation of Crimea?

Move history (please check my math):

• 10:02, 12 March 2020 Каракорум (Каракорум moved page Belohirsk to Belogorsk (Crimea) over redirect: The official name, with an explanation of where it is, taking into account the fact that there are several such cities. It was renamed to Belogorsk in 1944.) [5 days, so far]
• 07:08, 12 March 2020 Devlet Geray (Devlet Geray moved page Belogorsk (Crimea) to Belohirsk) [3 hours]
• 03:29, 12 March 2020 Каракорум (Каракорум moved page Qarasuvbazar to Belogorsk (Crimea): since 1944 this town called Belogorsk) [3 hours]
• 09:02, 30 September 2019 PlanespotterA320 (PlanespotterA320 moved page Bilohirsk to Qarasuvbazar over redirect: proper name) [7 months]
• 18:09, 1 March 2006 Ezhiki (moved Belogorsk to Bilohirsk: moving to the Ukrainian title) [13 years, 7 months]
• 23:38, 8 November 2005 Kjkolb (Bilogorsk moved to Belogorsk) [4 months]
• 23:38, 8 November 2005 Kjkolb created Bilogorsk [1 minute]

So let’s all agree to find a consensus by discussion, but in the meanwhile move the article back to the last stable title, Qarasuvbazar, or the official name and long-time stable title, Bilohirsk. All good? —Michael Z. 2020-03-17 19:29 z 19:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, let us use either the last stable title or the *long-time* stable version, but this move war must stop. § DDima 20:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• It was called Belogorsk since 1944, not since 2014. Why should it be called Qarasubazar, if Istanbul we do not call Constantinople? Каракорум (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  Was it? [Citation needed]. The earliest reference I can find, without trying very hard, is from 1963[1]. —Michael Z. 2020-03-19 18:38 z

  Per Soviet ethnic cleansing policies, the Tatar names of Crimean topography were obliterated in the 1940's by decree of the Crimean Committee. The renaming sprees were in 1944, 1946, and 1948. You can read more in the article about Detatarization of Crimea. You should search for the decrees and info about the town names IN RUSSIAN, not in english, because finding english translations of Crimean stuff is very hard. Read Постановление Крымского обкома ВКП(б) от 20 октября 1944 года (О переименовании населенных пунктов, гор и рек татарского, греческого и немецкого происхождения. Secondary sources like page 205 confirm that the name was changed in 1944. I do not see why you are unable to fathom that the name was wrongly changed during the height of the Soviet ethnic cleansing campaign in Crimea.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  We’re talking about English-language Wikipedia’s guidelines on titling articles. Right? We are not going to move this article to Карасубазар, Білогірськ, nor to Белогорск, so please stick to relevant arguments with relation to the guidelines. You’ve already voiced your opinion on the immediate rollback of the name, and we can read that on this page. You’ve also voiced your opinion of the morality of the USSR, rudely explained to me what my opinion on this subject is, and none of that seems to be the least bit helpful in the current discussion. Are you just here to alienate everyone so you’ll have more to complain about? —Michael Z. 2020-03-20 03:03 z

  You doubted the fact that that the city was renamed in 1944 because of a cursory English-language search. You are no Crimea expert, yet still voicing your opinion here. Hence I brought you up to speed with information about Soviet renaming policies. I never said that the Cyrllic name should be the page title in enwiki, so don't mock me. The renaming of the city from Qarasuvbazar to Belogorsk/Bilohirsk was illegal, so Qarasuvbazar, the true native name of the city, is the proper title.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  I never doubted for a second that the city was renamed Белогорск/Білогірськ in 1944, and I certainly never expressed such doubt. Please relate your argument to specific Wikipedia guidelines. I believe they value verifiable English usage in reliable sources, more than Soviet official naming. If you want to advance the idea of “true native name” as an argument, please show how it relates to our guidelines. You’re right, you never said that, but you continue to advance arguments that point to this inference. —Michael Z. 2020-03-21 16:57 z

I completely agree, it should be named either Bilohirsk or Qarasuvbazar, but of course not “belogorsk” Devlet Geray (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Qarasuvbazar is best, because it is the longtime historic name, followed by Belogorsk. But Bilohirsk should not be used since that name is rarely used.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• A city should not have a historical name if it still exists. It has an official name. Belogorsk and Bilogirsk means the same - White Mountain, only in Russian or Ukrainian. In 1944, it was renamed to the Russian version. Based on the fact that Crimea is now a disputed territory, one can argue which spelling is more correct than Russian or Ukrainian (they have the same meaning, only phonetics is different). But not Qarasuvbazar. The article should indicate that he bore the title until 1944, but the article itself should not be called that way. Каракорум (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• The long-standing naming practice for Crimea would give Bilohirsk. The only deviation from Ukrainian names is Gurzuf, which was renamed after a move request (and Krasnoperekopsk, which was renamed by Ukraine at the time it had no control on Crimea). Anything else would require a move request.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  And of course Belogorsk was not "imposed by an occupying power" but was an official name all the time. Russian was still an official language in the Crimean Autonomous Republic (and Ukrainian remains an official language in the Republic of Crimea). This is however irrelevant for the naming of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  "And of course Belogorsk was not "imposed by an occupying power" but was an official name all the time" WTF? The name was literally changed from Qarasuvbazar after the ILLEGAL deportation of the indigenous people of the land, ergo those left to rename it were an occupying power.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  This is about the English article title, not the Russian name Белогорск. See WP:UAPLACE. Bilohirsk is the only legal official Roman-alphabet spelling, since 1993. The Russian Federation invaded and occupied the Ukrainian territory in 2014, through illegal military force and threat of force, and uses Russian names and romanized Russian names in its maps, etcetera. This is the only reason we are considering this spelling now. (At the same time, the RF has closed Ukrainian-language schools and is forcing Ukrainian churches to Shut down, while refusing to acknowledge official Ukrainian place-name changes.) Literally imposed by the occupying power. —Michael Z. 2020-03-20 14:13 z

  Look, I understand that Canadian Ukrainians generally have strong feelings about the Ukraine conflict, and that these feelings are fully aligned with the Ukrainian propaganda. However, if your feelings are so strong that you can not be impartial here, you should not edit the articles on the topic. This is not what Wikipedia is for. You noticed that I advocate Bilohirsk in this discussion, but saying that Belohorsk is a morally impossible choice and using this as an argument in discussion is not really acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  That is really low, bringing up my background as a straw man. Let’s bring your personal history into this and show why you should be ineligible to bring facts to this conversation. Let’s categorize the moral suitability of Russian-Dutch Wikipedians. Please, give us a little biography about your ancestry, citizenship so we can determine what strong feelings you people generally have.

  You criticized my word choice. I defended it as one hundred percent accurate. “Occupying power” is not Ukrainian propaganda, it is from several UN General Assembly resolutions. I was responding to the ongoing theme in discussions like this where editors complained about Ukraine “imposing” article titles on Wikipedia. It’s relevant to this discussion. Your injecting personal innuendo into this discussion and skirting WP:PERSONALATTACKS is not. —Michael Z. 2020-03-20 14:45 z

  It may be accurate or may be not, it is just irrelevant for this discussion. And you actually started this discussion by saying that Belogorsk was imposed by an occupying power (which is factually untrue), you were not responding to anybody, at least not to anybody on this page. We have already seen that you were trying to push through your personal views on Kiev against consensus, calling your opponents names, to the point that I had to put Ds-alert on your talk page. You are doing the same now here. Your personal views should have no bearing on what the name of this article is. If they have, you should not be editing these articles. Concerning myself, if I am not impartial, you surely must be able to indicate what party I belong to and to prove with diffs that I am always on the same side? And if you imply that I am always support the Russian side, first, I am pretty sure you can not prove this because it is not true; second it is not consistent for example with my edits on this very page. I have been called pro-Russia, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian so many times that I can not really even remember all the instances. I do not think anybody ever accused you in being pro-Russian. You have a pretty consistent POV position as far as everything related to Ukraine is concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• It is factually correct that Bilohirsk/Belogorsk was imposed by an occupying power. You can pretend all you want, but the Detatarization of Crimea was a cornerstone of the settler-colonialist occupation, which was ILLEGAL. Qarasuvbazar is the RIGHTFUL, historic legal name. Wikipedia should not recognize subsequent illegal name changes done in the name of ethnic cleansing. To act like the post-deportation detatarization was not occupation by a foreign power is willful blindness. I an well aware that many people from Russian Wikipedia like to pretend Crimea is all theirs and go full defensive for the occupiers, but that doesn't make you native.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  As far as I know, the only Russian Wikipedia user in this discussion is Devlet Geray, and they are indefinitely blocked over there. Unfortunately you argument is not policy-nased. It is indeed as ridiculous as to rename the article Istanbul to Constantinople.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, we all know that you're Russian. Your userpages aren't invisible. You have the bias we would expect you to have, that is one thing, but denying your bias is another.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  I am not Russian, and I do not have the bias you expect me to have. In fact, I am equally harassed on a daily basis by Ukrainian users claiming I have pro-Russian bias and Russian users claiming I have pro-Ukrainian bias. Just today I was harassed by a Russian LTA. I would consider myself impartial. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  I did not say nor imply any of those things about you. I was demonstrating what your statements about me looked like. But here you are, using your status as an admin to continue telling us why my input should be disqualified from consideration. —Michael Z. 2020-03-20 16:31 z

  I am not using my status as admin. I did not mention it anywhere, and I did not threaten to block you or whatever. I also do not disqualify your input (especially since we propose the same name), I just remark that that arguments you are using are (i) factually wrong (ii) not aligned with the English Wikipedia policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  You keep telling me I should not edit articles, apparently due to my “Canadian Ukrainian” temperament. You accused me of a moral argument that I did not make. You are calling me a habitual name-caller, although I don’t see that in my edits. You referred to some warning you posted on my talk page to paint me as a troublemaker, although it bears no relationship to my being “factually wrong.” Please cut this out. —Michael Z. 2020-03-20 18:15 z

  This and this is calling people names because they uphold Wikipedia policies but you happen to dusagree with them. This is where you call consensus "so-called consensus", even though you should know that [[WP:CONSENSUS[[ is the fundamental policy. You did make a moral argument, saying that Belogorsk should not be used because it was "imposed by an occupying power". This is not a policy-based argument, this is an argument based on your convictions. In addition, it is factually wrong, as you were explained in this very thread. No occupation power can impose the English name of a locality on the English native speakers. What happened indeed that the usage of Белогорск became more prominent than Бiлогирск - but Russian was there a state language since 1944, when the name first appeared, and the population is and was closed to 100% Russian-speaking (I happened to visit the place in 1993, there was not a single road sign in Ukrainian). Again, this is all irrelevant for the choice of the article name and should not have been brought into the discussion. Well, Canadian-Ukrainian I can strike if you wish, but isn't this what you say yourself at your user page?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  If you can’t point to specific offensive names that I called specific people, then I think your accusation might constitute libel. I described as “so-called” your group’s notion that there was a consensus identified among Wikipedians—to suppress discussion on Talk:Kyiv of a a question exactly as it is becoming so obviously more important to discuss—and certainly not the guideline Wikipedia:Consensus, which that group is so blatantly disrespecting. Your empty accusations are starting to feel like real harassment, and I’m asking you again to please stop. —Michael Z. 2020-03-21 17:02 z

  I said what I felt important to say. I do think you failed to respect WP:CONSENSUS in that discussion, and that you continue failing to respect it. I do not think my accusations are empty. However, I do think that these arguments belong to the current discussion. I apologize if they were made more personal than needed, and I definitely did not mean to sound like harassment. I am sorry if you feel like this. I also hope that the closer will figure out which arguments here are policy-based and which merely express personal opinions irrelevant to the policy. I am not planning to respond in this discussion any longer, and I suggest that if you are still not satisfied you should take the matter to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) Let me extend this a bit. Normally, we should use WP:COMMONNAME and determine what is the common name of this city in English (not in Russian, not in Ukrainian, not in Crimean Tatar, but in English). However, at some point there was a discussion (which I will not even try to find now, but I managed to find it a couple of times before) which decided that, in particular, in Ukraine most localities are so obscure that they do not have common English names. The identified exceptions were Kiev, Odessa, and Chernobyl. All others must use Romanization of Ukrainian via WP:UKR - with the exception of localities which were renamed after Ukraine lost control over them (these should be considered separately if/when Ukraine regains control). Everything else must go through requested moves. Therefore the name of this locality should be indeed Bilohirsk, and everything else must go via requested moves. In particular, if there is no consensus in this discussion, the undiscussed move must be reverted to Bilohirsk. This is just an implementation of the existing policy. Sympathies of the participants of this discussion to Russia, Ukraine, Crimean Tatars, Crimean Khanate and whatever are irrelevant and should not replace policy-based arguments. Whoever argues that the name is different from Bilohirsk must demonstrate that this new name is indeed the most common English name of the locality.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  That's pretty much what Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Ukrainian_places) says. --Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed, thanks, but there must be somwehere a discussion which led to these formulations. (Though it is probably not very relevant now).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• There are three state (official) languages in Crimea: Crimean Tatar, Ukrainian and Russian. This town is named Belogorsk in Russian, Bilohirsk in Ukrainian and Qarasuvbazar in Crimean Tatar. Belogorsk is the most inappropriate (at least there is another Belogorsk by Благовещенск in Russia and we have to add clarification "(Crimea)" then). There remains only two names to choose from: Bilohirsk (official Ukrainian name) and Qarasuvbazar (name in one of the Crimea's state languages). Devlet Geray (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Did this discussion ever come to a consensus?--Khajidha (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem to be the case. Anyway, I unwatched this page together with a bunch of similar pages about Ukrainian localities about a month ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

And the current name is in violation of WP:MOS, but who cares.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2021

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 section.

---

Bilohirsk (Crimea) → Belogorsk (Crimea) – The page was moved without consensus from Belogorsk to Bilohirsk in October 2020. Later, when I tried to restore the original version, another user moved the article again, this redirect had already been written.Ursus belli (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, English-language transliterations of geographical names within Crimea should reflect Ukrainian forms. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose internationally recognized as part of Ukraine--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Ursus, why do you believe it should be Belogorsk over Bilohirsk? BilledMammal (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment:@BilledMammal:, according to the Constitution of the AR Crimea and the Constitution of Crimea it is official to write it that way, as an official language. Also it should be moved by WP:COMMONNAME, it is the most used term. Apart from the geopolitical situation, locally it is the most used term, since a large part of its population is ethnically Russian and linguistically Russian-speaking. Ursus belli (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: the document you cite quite clearly lists official language (Ukrainian) first, and only then Russian. It should also depend on what english language sources use and not the local usage.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, only Ukrainian is official in Ukraine. The constitution lists “the official language,” meaning Ukrainian, as well as the ethnic languages with special local rights, explicitly named as Russian and Crimean Tatar.

Locally most used name is Белогорск, not its Latin romanization. Guidelines support using romanized Ukrainian in Ukraine, regardless of the most common local language, and don’t address the specific situation in Crimea.

Previous discussion did not determine a most common name. Please show evidence if you believe one is the single common name in English. It is problematic because there are at least four places with this name, the official name changed in 1991 (see WP:MODERNPLACENAME), and then its status changed in 2014. —Michael Z. 14:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Our general consensus is to use Ukrainian place names for places in Ukraine. Crimea’s situation is special, but there is no consensus to make an exception. The nomination doesn’t offer any rationale. —Michael Z. 14:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  To resolve this we really need a broader discussion about consistent treatment of place names in Crimea, but it may be a very big conversation for not much change. —Michael Z. 14:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural remark: It appears that for nearly 14 years until September 2019, the title of this article was Bilohirsk. There has been controversy since then. In the absence of a consensus, it should probably be moved back to Bilohirsk, without the "(Crimea)". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Does anyone have evidence as to what its common name is in neutral, English-language sources? If it can be established that it is Belogorsk, then the article should be renamed to that. However, in the absence of this evidence the article should continue to be named Bilohirsk, as the last stable title, per WP:TITLECHANGES. BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: @BilledMammal:, @RicardoNixon97: Sorry for the delay, I was busy. Here I will cite the various sources that endorse the term "Belogorsk": The Guardian, The Washington Post, Euronews, HRW, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, these are some although there are more. So it should be considered WP:COMMONNAME, since in Crimea and for the sources I have cited it is the name generally used. Moreover, Ukraine does not currently control the peninsula so it could not impose this name since Russia has it under its control and under its own policies. Ursus belli (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Control is irrelevant, because neither Ukraine nor Russia can impose an English name on us (furthermore, while the name Білогірськ [uk] and Latin romanization Bilohirsk are official in Ukraine, all three names Карасубазар [crh], Белогорск [ru], and Білогірськ [uk] are official in Russia). COMMONNAME would be relevant, if you can demonstrate it, but currently a Google News search shows Bilohirsk used by at least ten different sources. The authoritative GeoNames server gives Bilohirsk as the approved name, Belogorsk as one of the variants. Google Maps gives Bilohirs'k. Apple Maps gives Bilohirsk. —Michael Z. 19:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

But if you search for Belogorsk in Google News you will find even more than 30 different sources. Ursus belli (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Fewer, because a number of those refer to a place or places in Russia, and at least one to a video game map. Anyway, that adds to the body of evidence that there is more than one commonly used name. —Michael Z. 14:27, 8 August 2021 (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.

Requested move 23 August 2021

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: Speedy moved as removal of an unnecessary qualifier. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Bilohirsk (Crimea) → Bilohirsk – The bare title already redirects here, and the parenthetical disambiguator is unnecessary, so should be removed per WP:PRECISION. —Michael Z. 01:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Unnecessary parenthetical, as pointed out by BarrelProof at 16:26, 4 August 2021, above — seems to be an uncontroversial technical request. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious move; slightly embarrassed that I missed this in the above discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and per my previous procedural remark at 16:26, 4 August 2021, above. I think this can be processed as a speedy request without lengthy discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2021 (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.