Republic of Crimea (country) is an article about the Republic of Crimea for one day after the referendum and prior to Russia accepting integration of Crimea. I believe that article is unnecessary, it merely represents the Republic of Crimea in its transitional period after the referendum, and as such I believe there are no grounds for a separate article to exist for the Republic as being a country for a one-day period.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's population is practically all Russian and, eventually, people will have to recognize it as part of Russia RobertMoukahm (talk) 13:55, 123 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It WAS a country. No matter how brief of the time it was a country, it still mattered and they should be kept seperate Mamemame187 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it still mattered" - I disagree with that, the territory was going to merge with Russia, regardless if it spent a day waiting for the official "Okay" from Moscow.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "it was a country" – Yes, it was a country. However, it wasn't recognized as one by the majority of world nations. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There are many short-lived countries that have their own Wikipedia articles. This state is especially significant as it was recognized by 4 states in the one day it existed. [Soffredo] 02:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does being recognized by four states mean that it is "especially significant"? What are the sources that show such states recognizing it as an independent state and not merely seceded from Ukraine? This is an entity that declared well in advance its intention to seek unification with Russia. It waited a day before Moscow approved, that is not a good reason to create an article.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per the reasons I made above.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per @Mamemame187:. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support the move because Republic of Crimea (country) is essentially the same as this Republic of Crimea, so the two should be merged into one big article, instead of two small articles.
• Support Gibberish987 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There should be different articles for the short-lived independent republic and the Russian federal subject. There are many articles on Wikipedia for short-lived independent republics, whether unrecognized, partially recognized or generally recognized. Take for example, the California Republic, the Republic of Texas, the Vermont Republic, and the Republic of Hawaii, none of these articles have been merged into their respective U.S state articles. --Stan2525 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any of those countries involve the entity that became them, publicly declaring its intention to join another country and waiting a single day until that other country agreed? I doubt it, and thus the examples you listed are not comparable. The Republic of Crimea declared, in advance, that it was seeking to join Russia.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Republic of Hawaii existed for about 4 years, and was initially seen asillegitimate by the U.S. government. Only the California Republic is a similar situation, but even there a clear change occurred later, and it did exist for 2 months, with the outcome of the whole situation complex. Actually, in that case it was initially proclaimed and abandoned significantly before its eventual formation. The California Republic lasted over a month, and was created by people who had no clue how long it might last. It's borders also did not coincide with any later political entity. In reality it was much smaller than modern California, and in claims it was larger than modern California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There should be distinction between Crimea the Ukrainian district, Crimea the one-day country and Crimea the Russian district. One-day countries, not something you see everyday 130.126.56.185 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There should be different articles for the Ukrainian Autonoumous Republic of Crimea, for the independent Republic of Crimea and for the Russian Republic of Crimea. Aotearoa (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. SaintAviator talk 09:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. It's a common Wikipedian error to treat such questions as matters of ontology rather than as matters of reader-friendliness. The question is not whether the one-day existence of this entity made it into something that is notionally a separate topic. The question is whether we have anything to say about it that we aren't also saying elsewhere. As it is, the "country" article is and will always be 100% redundant to the republic article. We are not doing any of our readers a favour by presenting them this additional wall of text if they won't find any extra information there that they haven't already found elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per Fut. Perf. above. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Two different entities claiming to be two different things. IJA (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not "claiming to be different things". Maybe you misunderstood the proposal? This is not about merging the Russian-recognized "republic" with the Ukrainian-recognized "autonomous republic". It's about merging the self-declared fully independent country (existing for one day between its secession from Ukraine to its accession to Russia) with the Russian republic it became the next day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fut.Perf. I didn't misunderstand anything. You have misunderstood my comment, I never mentioned the de jure Ukrainian Autonomous Republic. Let me make this clear for you; the Proclaimed Independent Sovereign State and the de facto Autonomous Russian Republic are two different entities which have existed at two different points in history, hence why there should be two different articles for two different entities which have existed at two different periods of time. IJA (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The independent country included both the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol as a single united nation. The federal subject does not include Sevastopol, only the Autonomous Republic. Therefore, the entities are fundamentally different. From The Washington Post: "The city of Sevastopol also entered the Russian Federation, as a separate entity—a status it traditionally enjoyed as an important military center." [1]—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no evidence that it legally included Sevastopol for one day anymore than evidence that it did not. What legal documents were arranged that officially formalized Sevastopol's incorporation into Crimea during that one day? - And by legal documents I don't mean the proposed declaration of independence, I mean documents showing legal arrangements for incorporation into Crimea. Bear in mind that this entire process is legally disputed by Ukraine and Western countries. But apparently in negotiations, it was decided for Sevastopol to join separately. Also the government of Crimea stated from the outset its intention to join Russia. A one-day waiting period for the official "okay" from Moscow is hardly grounds for a topic to base an article on.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as stated above - this article is about Crimea Republic as part of Russia, the other article is about independent Crimea--Truther2012 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It was an independent short lived country that consisted of both the old Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and Sevastopol. The new Republic of Crimea that is part of Russia does not include Sevastopol. Sevastopol is a federal city like St.Petersburg and Moscow. 72.79.135.33 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence do you have that it was "independent"? Second, what legal documents were arranged that officially formalized Sevastopol's incorporation into Crimea during that one day? - And by legal documents I don't mean the proposed declaration of independence, I mean documents showing legal arrangements for incorporation into Crimea.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is getting extremely confusing. We now have Crimea, Crimean peninsula, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea (country). We do not need the article on the very briefly independent "Republic of Crimea (country). It only existed for the purpose of becoming a federal subject of Russia, and is extremely confusing to the reader. Merely explain in the history section of this article that the Republic was briefly independent together with Sebastopol, but that they are now separate. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging per Future Perfect and RGloucester. "The country was established for a little more than a day as a result of the 2014 Crimean referendum, before it was joined to Russia as one of its republics". Having two separate articles here is simply ridiculous. Merge and possibly rename. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It being it's own country is different than being a part of Russia. A good thing to compare this to would be Azawad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to vast majority of sources, it never was "own country", because referendum was illegal per majority of sources, and it never will be. It was a part of Ukraine, and it will be a part of Russian Federation. This is simply annexation of a territory by another sate per majority (of sources) view.My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: why don't we just merge this article into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation? Sounds like a much better idea since this "country" only lasted a day and it was done for the sole purpose of acceding into Russia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The "independence" was merely a vehicle to the accession. RGloucester — ☎ 00:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support that idea. Lets do that Jack Bornholm (talk)

Can we do one proposal at a time here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support your idea. I think the current Republic of Crimea will be lasted longer, so this article is needed regardless of this discussion. --Virtpedia (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the same reason as we have articles about the various countries listed under the List of shortest-lived sovereign states. Many of these were just vehicles for annexations, or otherwise simply byproducts of political and legal technicalities, nonetheless, they have their own articles, and are seen as notable in themselves. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As an example, the Republic of Georgia (1861) which lasted for a few days is not the same thing as the Confederate State of Georgia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The nominal brief independence is a technical byproduct of the (disputed) process of leaving Ukraine and joining Russia, nothing more, nothing less. Such technicalities have happened throughout history without being notable in themseles; this is very different from brief rebellions that see short-lived republics created explicitly to go it alone. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to support merging. I'm not sure it makes sense to treat the independent country and the later subject of Russia as distinct, because even though there is a formal political distinction, this isn't a distinction that the Russian or Crimean population was making at the time. Their aim was never to be an independent country, but to join Russia, so the independent country is merely a stage as part of that process, not a topic in its own right. CodeCat (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this will miss the fact that there where a de facto independent country of Crimea including Sevastopol. 3bdulelah (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not need separate articles for every minor change in the political status of a country. When a status existed for less than 2 days, it is not worth having separate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, by your logic, most of the articles linked on this page should be deleted. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no need for this fork Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it is helpful to readers to keep this separate. It's not a "minor change in the political status of a country" at all. And we have articles on some of the states with a similar lifespan - Russian Democratic Federative Republic, Republic of Benin (1967), Republic of Galicia, etc. StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those states functionally remained intact (other than Sebastopol) as they entered into a federation. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Wikipedia has plenty of other articles on short-lived and pseudo-states, and Crimea should not be any different just because the controversy is fresh. That was my reasoning in splitting this off, anyway -- despite my personal views on this issue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There have not been two countries named "Republic of Crimea". There has been only one country named "Republic of Crimea" which changed its status from an independent country into a federal subject of Russia (although the current events are not widely accepted). Additionally, the former status was very short and interim. I think the two articles should be merged. --Virtpedia (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional opinion (Plan B): I believe the name "Republic of Crimea (country)" isn't suitable. I think the current Republic of Crimea can be also considered as "country" although it's not independent. England (in the United Kingdom) and the Netherlands (in the larger Kingdom) are not independent but they are "countries". If the article is kept, the name should be changed into other such as "Republic of Crimea (self-proclaimed sovereign state)" or something like that and the "Republic of Crimea (country)" redirect the current "Republic of Crimea". —Virtpedia (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The title is one of the main things that makes this article unfeasible. RGloucester — ☎ 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for all reasons stated above. Furthermore, to everyone saying this will confuse readers: how dumb do you think our readers are? Each article clearly explains what political entity (or, in the case of Crimean Peninsula, geographic region) it is or was, in the opening paragraph. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' In a few months this silly article will be merged into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. The current Wikipedia flux is a harmless by-product of the real-world flux. jnestorius^(talk) 23:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not a majority vote, but based on the strength of the arguments. These articles are about the same entity which had the same government, parliment, and (most importantly) the same purpose; to join Crimea to Russia (for which there is also an article, Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation). At no time was the Republic of Crimea a functioning, independent nation. There is no legal requirement that Wikipedia have an article for every single legal "country" that has ever existed. Also, it really is confusing to the reader--I know this because it confused me. Abductive (reasoning) 00:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as they are/were two different proclaimed things, such as the Republic of Georgia and Georgia in the Confederacy as mentioned above. Old Al (Talk) 02:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on grounds of duplication; there is no meaningful distinction between the two and the two pretty much say the same thing. The history section, along with whatever annexation article there is, is more than sufficient; there's no reason to have the country article be a separate article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose what a nonsense to have an independent country and a federal subject in one article. Tibet2014 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it's not nonsense to have an article that is never going to consist of more than one paragraph, because the topic it covers didn't exist long enough to have anything happen to it? CodeCat (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such, for example, as this article Alabama Republic, or this article Republic of Georgia (1861), or this article State of Somaliland. As far as I can see, it is consensus policy to include articles about all sovereign states, even ones that have existed for only a few days, as long as these states are often referred to as such by reliable sources (i.e. they are not micronations). This makes sense, IMO, since the appearance of a sovereign state, even briefly, is a notable event, even if the sole purpose for the state's existence is to be annexed into something else (for example, the sole purpose of the Alabama Republic was to eventually join the confederacy, the sole purpose of the State of Somaliland was to join Somalia, and the sole purpose of this state was to legitimate Russia's takeover). --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (and I changed all the '''Against'''s to '''Oppose'''s for clarity, because I'm assuming these editors are all opposing this merge) because of the duplication between the two articles; they basically describe the same event. Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither describes an event. Go back to English class. Tibet2014 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's history class, not English class. Go learn your classes first. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your are unable to parse the word "country". A country is not an event. Go, go, back to English class. And it's not history neither, it's classification. The article is not history, although it can be about a historical entity. Tibet2014 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT - the merge is complete nonsense as the two entities cover different territory. Please all that have no clue delete their votes or stay away from voting. There is enough nonsense in Wikipedia geography articles already. Tibet2014 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  

  . Tibet2014 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Although the independent republic was a stepping stone to integration into Russia, it was still an independent sovereign state at one stage. The Republic of Crimea within the Russian Federation is 26,100 square kilometres. The Republic of Crimea that was independent for one day was 27,000 km square kilometres. I could draw a Euler diagram or something to perhaps explain this better, but the two concepts have slight differences. That said, it's probably too early to make any decision on these two pages right now. I'd say wait 2 or 3 months before starting another merge discussion. There's no rush for anything right now. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  First, “Venn” is a proper noun and must be capitalized. Second, the thing you refer to is called correctly an Euler diagram. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers for pointing that out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Political status of Crimea. This is the real topic, not certain extra-short-lived puppet “republic”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WARNING TO Incnis Mrsi - To call it puppet is violating NPOV. Will you propose to move any other short lived state XYZ to Political status of XYZ? Tibet2014 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I may “violate” WP:NPOV at will while out of the articles’ space. No, I will not. Carpatho-Ukraine held only three days, but it wasn’t a puppet republic and, possibly, deserves a separate article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]