Talk:Ukrainian crisis

Requested Move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Ukrainian crisis. Although there was probably consensus for the original proposal, the subsequent proposal was supported unanimously. I will also moved the related articles mentioned at the bottom. Number 57 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

---

This crisis has not ended in 2015 and even though it is early in 2015, the title makes it seem as though it has ended. The use of article titles ending in a year at the beginning such as things with a 2014–2015 are reserved for set things such as the 2014–15 Premier League which is set to begin in 2014 and end in 2015. This is not the same and we should distinguish it for the reader because in the end they are the reason that this encyclopedia exists and we should make it easier for them to understand. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) - SantiLak (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Present" or "2015"

• Support - I agree the title you suggest sounds better. - Gaming4JC (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – I see no reason for a change. The present title is not incorrect, nor is it bad for the reader. There is no implication of "ending", which must be some kind of misconstruction on your part. It simply says that the crisis has taken place from 2013 to 2015, which is correct. It would be WP:CRYSTAL to suggest otherwise. Natural disambiguation is always preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, according to our title criteria, and hence the proposed title is no good. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not WP:CRYSTAL to suggest a different form of the title. Having it listed as (2013–present) wouldn't make it seem like we are predicting anything, in fact the other title is because it is in a way predicting that the conflict will only last into 2015 while the proposed version would make it clear that it is only occurring up until the present date and if it were to end then it would be appropriate to change it. - SantiLak (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It is only occurring up to 2015, because there has been no further year in our calendar. If the title was labeled "2013–16", then I'd understand your concerns, as there has been no 2016. However, the present title makes the most sense. There is no amorphous "present". A parenthetically disambiguated title simply cannot be accepted by comparison to a naturally disambiguated one. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support—But I think crisis should be capitalized. Charles Essie (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be capitalised per MOS:CAPS. It is not a proper name, it is a descriptive title. RGloucester — ☎ 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. --IJBall (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support – "2015" and "present" currently have the same extension, but their intension is different. "Present" specifies no end date for the crisis, whereas "2015" in effect specifies an end date. – Herzen (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – The suggested change is unnecessary and guarantees that the title in use will only be temporary. Dustin (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the current title implies that the crisis will end in 2015 even though there is no evidence to back it up. I would take temporary over that.--65.94.253.74 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. When anyone with any sense of time knows that it is 2015 currently, I have absolutely no idea how you are getting "the crisis will end in 2015" from merely including "15" in the currently known range of time for the subject. Dustin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice crystal ball you have there. Nobody has any grounds for believing that the crisis will not continue from 2015 into 2016 as it did from 2014 into 2015. Thus, keeping the title as it is will make it temporary, whereas changing it as proposed will make it more stable. – Herzen (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It takes a crystal ball to assert that there will be a year after 2015. We do not know that this is the case, at present. It is impossible to do so. As a result, the present title is not at all temporary, nor does it imply an end date. It simply implies that the crisis has spanned from 2013 until 2015, and it has. Any assertions about the crisis spanning to an amorphous "present" rely on a crystal ball, and also on an inherently non-concrete notion of time that is not useful to the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the proposed title looks like it is using the years as a disambiguator, but at present it is not ambiguous. There is no other topic called "Ukrainian crisis", and indeed the main article Ukrainian crisis redirects to this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a move to "Ukrainian crisis"? I think that might be acceptable, if others agree. I mean, there have been other crises in Ukraine, but I don't think they've ever been called "Ukrainian crisis". RGloucester — ☎ 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Mr Ho, what do you think of just plain Ukrainian crisis? It redirects here, so there is no need for any disambiguation, it seems. No other events have been called "Ukrainian crisis", even if there have been other crises in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any "Ukraine crisis"? If so, I should turn it into a disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No. No other events have ever been called "Ukrainian crisis", and certainly not "Ukraine crisis" (nonstandard English). RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - this is the only correct option as I see it, unless we do away with years entirely (no opinion from me on that count) but the current title is completely unacceptable until and unless the crisis ends this year. Red Slash 01:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it unacceptable? The crisis has not been in any other years than 2013, 2014, and 2015. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ukrainian crisis"

• Move to "Ukrainian crisis" - There never was Ukraine until the fall of the Golden Horde (a territory of former Mongol Empire), was there? Also, since any other related events haven't been called "crisis", extra precision and disambiguation are unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, per my reasoning above. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support move Saying "2013-15" implies the crisis will, for sure, end in 2015, and there's no way of telling if that is true or not. "2013-present" would make more sense until the crisis actually ends. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, "2013–15" does not imply the crisis will "end". We don't know if there will be a year after 2015, so saying anything other than 2015 implies that we can be certain there will be a year after 2015. It is a pure disaster. The crisis has taken place from 2013–2015, and hasn't taken place in any other years, as there have been no other years. Regardless, you're in the wrong section. In this section, we're talking about "Ukrainian crisis" sans any years. Do you support that? RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Anyways, I wouldn't mind a move to just "Ukranian crisis", as per the reason above. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 02:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I'm fine with a move to that, it works for the same reasons that I wanted to move the article before. - SantiLak (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Ukrainian crisis, currently a redirect to this article. The obvious solution, ticks all the boxes. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: But I think crisis should be capitalized like with most conflict articles. Charles Essie (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be capitalised per MOS:CAPS. It is not a proper name, merely a descriptive title. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. There don't appear to be other Ukrainian crises called such. I oppose the use of "2015" as implying the end of the crisis in 2015. —  AjaxSmack  03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• To the closer: If this page is moved, there are a bunch of subpages that are going to need moving. Please carry out these moves if this page is moved. The pages are as follows:

List of individuals sanctioned during the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

International sanctions during the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

Media portrayal of the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

Template:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

Template:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis navbox

Template:Campaignbox 2013–15 Ukrainian Crisis

Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis

Thanks very much. It is best to ensure we don't have any loose ends. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ukrainian crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228160327/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140228 to http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140228
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414125950/https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-special-forces-sent-eastern-city-retake-buildings-082049113.html to https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-special-forces-sent-eastern-city-retake-buildings-082049113.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141015164343/http://rumedia.biz/item/3037 to http://rumedia.biz/item/3037
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150108051631/http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/770172 to http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/770172

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Putin for President?

This is interesting. http://www.fort-russ.com/a2016/11/scandalous-poll-84-of-ukrainians-want.html What do you think? SaintAviator lets talk 20:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.62.5 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's the justification for this article?

This article implies that there is a 'prolonged' 'crisis' in Ukraine but it seems that what we have is a crisis within the nation rather than in its entirety. Furthermore, as you dig deeper to see why exactly this is a supposedly 'prolonged' crisis you only find out that the reason is because there is a contained war in Donbass, but the article does not explain how that war is affecting Ukraine as a whole. The only fact given is that the Ukrainian economy suffered a decline in 2014, but that's attributed to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution rather than the supposedly 'prolonged' and 'ongoing' crisis in Ukraine. Moreover, reliable sources for the keywords "Ukrainian crisis" point to this very article, to the 2014 event, or to the War in Donbass rather than to a supposedly 'prolonged' and 'ongoing' crisis in the nation. What gives? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it should summarize the ongoing political turmoil in Ukraine, a combination of Crimea, the war in Donbass, and the current infighting among different political factions in Kiev, as well as the economic problems as a result. For example, like the Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) article is doing for Yemen. Romanov loyalist (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with user Ahnoneemoos. Actually after checking the given source (German, Tracey; Karagiannis, Emmanuel (2018). "Introduction". The Ukrainian Crisis: The Role of, and Implications for, Sub-State and Non-State Actors. Routledge. ISBN 9781351737920.) I do not see there the current definition of the Ukrainian crisis which include the Russo-Ukrainian War in it. In Russian wikipedia the very name of the article is "Political crisis in Ukraine (2013-2014)" which is more consistent with the sources. As far as I can see this article should focus on the Euromaidan protest and the subsequent pro-Russian unrest. The Russo-Ukrainian War (and the War in Donbass as the main part of it) should not be included in the Ukrainian crisis. --Sallandman (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguate

This article is far from clear. Anything can be described as an "Ukrainian crisis". But in Ukraine there has been a permanent crisis since it was founded, sometimes because of the political circumstances, sometimes because of the economy, the energy industry and inflation, sometimes because of demographic change, sometimes because of a language problem and of course always because of the greedy oligarchs and corrupt politicians and civil servants, thus "Ukrainian crisis" very general, as already said. For 2014 events we already have Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. The ongoing military conflict in Donbas is decribe by War in Donbas article. There is also a broad concept article Russo-Ukrainian War. See also the above section. Draft:Ukrainian crisis is created. --Heanor (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• User:George Ho, can you make a comment here then? --Heanor (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm doing the WP:BRD thing. To gain consensus, others must be notified about this discussion at WikiProject talk pages (seen at the top of the page), like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine. Also, please undo the link changes you made in other articles if willing. Also, please press the "submit" button in Draft:Ukrainian crisis. --George Ho (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • OK,  Done. --Heanor (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • All right. Now what about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics? George Ho (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        •  Done. And why to press the "submit" button in Draft:Ukrainian crisis? I've alredy done this, just curious. I thought that is needed only for WP:AFC. --Heanor (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Support disambiguation. I also think that the current title leads readers to oversimplify and generalize the issues in Ukraine over the past decades/centuries based on the current crises. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (edid conflict) This present article title is probably not a very good title - for reasons that the OP indirectly points out. It is a matter of Wikipedia:Recentism. Any event can be called a 'crisis' in a contemporary context. It is not going to be an enduring good title. I have looked at the draft DAB. How far back do we go - how many centuries? Some of these articles in the draft DAB don't even mention the word 'crisis'. The criteria for inclusion becomes a matter of WP:SYNTH. Unless this particular article title (here) is enduringly known as the "Ukrainian crisis", we should find a better name. To the proposal for a DAB of that title, I'm not particularly convinced either. Other countries face 'crises' - sometimes as regularly and of a similar scale. How are these dealt with? Not this way? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Cinderella157, how far back do we go Ukraine gained its independence in 1991, thus logical to go back till 1991. But Ukrainian War targets List of wars involving Ukraine. --Heanor (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Heanor, then your proposed DAB fails, since Ukrain (as a general term) goes back much further than that. But that is not the primary issue per my comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as the article’s subject overlaps with all of those other articles with better defined scope. Perhaps the material ought to be retained by merging into those articles and “History of Ukraine.” While the name is poorly defined, it is so commonly used that a dab page is appropriate, but should include only subjects that reliable sources actually call “Ukraine crisis” or “Ukrainian crisis.” —Michael Z. 16:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Google Book Search returns 1,410 results published in the 20th century for "Ukraine crisis" OR "Ukrainian crisis" -Wikipedia, including references to 1917, 1939, 1991–92, and a potential crisis after 1994 within the first two pages of results. —Michael Z. 16:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus Process

User:George Ho - Since you have reverted a request to make Ukrainian crisis a disambiguation page, and have requested discussion, I have:

• 1. Accepted Draft:Ukrainian crisis as Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation).
• 2. Initiated an RFC to establish that Ukrainian crisis should be disambiguated.

The existing article on the 2014 crisis can be moved or merged if this is approved.

User:Heanor, User:Mzajac, User:Cinderella157, User:A. C. Santacruz - You may wish to !vote in the RFC also. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Target of Ukrainian crisis

The following discussion 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.

---

Should Ukrainian crisis be a disambiguation page? (Rather than an article on the 2014 crisis that resulted in the Russian annexation of Crimea.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please enter your !votes and brief statements in the Survey. Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Threaded Discussion section; that's what it's for.

Survey

• Yes, I strongly believe the page is best as a disambiguation page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, Support as initiator. The title Ukrainian crisis can refer to any of multiple crises, and should be a disambiguation page. The present article should be moved or merged. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm torn - Converting the article into the dabpage is a risk, especially with a large number of articles linking to the article. That's why I reverted the page back to what it has been before the dabpage conversion. Reading the approved dabpage, Cinderella157 was right on the money in a previous pre-RfC thread about synthesis and original thoughts, discouraged by longstanding policy. As-is, I'm unsure whether I should accept the re-conversion to dabpage. I eliminated some entries as possibly not fitting with what's considered a "crisis". How about converting the dabpage or this article into a set index instead? That way, we can use reliable sources to verify an event as a "crisis". Also, the use of the current title goes way back to the 2015 RM discussion, but I understand subsequent concerns about the titling. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not yet. After we are to the "hindsight" stage, probably. But at present, this is by far the most important article about a Ukrainian crisis. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, support as initiator. First, the 2021 Russian military moves can already been seen to be at least as significant as the 2014 events. Secondly, the 2014 events that led to the seizure of the Crimea are much better covered in Euromaidan, Revolution of Dignity, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation articles. PS. See comments of User:Mzajac above too. --Heanor (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• There has got to be a better way Ukrainian crisis states that it is the collective title for events in 2013-2014. Contrary to the previous RfC the "crisis" now has (by its own words) a defined period but despite this, as far as I can see, there is no defined end to related events up until the present. As I said above, "crisis" is a matter of WP:RECENTISM and unlikely to be an enduring title. All these crises sound too munch like a neurotic Nancy. After some culling by George Ho, the proposed dab page is roughly divided in two. We probably need to find enduring and natural "main article titles" for each (set) and work from there. If we must talk about the "Ukrainian crisis" then one of them can then be the primary target and the other a hatnote. But, I don't think that Ukrainian crisis is a good title and it already points to being a collective title. I don't think that Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation) as a dab page or a set index is also a good solution either. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Russo-Ukrainian War. That is what most of people would think when they hear 'Ukrainian crisis'. Or disambiguate with the Revolution of Dignity. All the other meanings are not so often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a464:efc:1:d433:7f1c:81ea:61b (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see some merit in this. That which does not formally fall within the war broadly construed (starting early 2014) was part of the immediate background leading to the war. I think it is worth further consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Merge and create DAB – This article was originally created as a summary page, back when the relevant articles were less developed. There is no longer any need for this page in its present form. All content present here exists elsewhere, and if anything is deemed to be useful, it can be merged to a relevant article. A disambiguation page should now be established. However, it is very important that when such a page is established, all sorts of random 'crises' are not inserted without justification. Merely because something can be thought of as a 'crisis' does not mean that thing is called 'Ukrainian crisis'. Only events that are actually referred to as 'Ukrainian crisis' in reliable sources should be included, and I would argue, this is a very limited number of events. Most likely, the 2014 events and the 2021/22 events are the only ones that qualify. The present state of Ukrainian crisis (disambiguation) is a travesty. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - The number of different pages proposed for redirection proves that the reader would be best served by a disambiguation page that clearly distinguished between specific moments such as Euromaidan or the annexation of Crimea and the larger, ongoing, conflict in Ukraine. PraiseVivec (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge and disambiguate  (Didn’t we just vote on exactly this?) What is this article? The definition in the lead is not exactly supported by its one reference, a 2017 compilation of 2016 articles which does not seem to define the term, but is about the ongoing conflict of 2014 to 2017 (and now, to 2022). The book’s introduction does refer more specifically to “the crisis of 2013–2015,” “the crisis of 2013/2014,” and “the Euromaidan crisis of 2013/14” (we have an article Euromaidan), but the title of chapter 3 is “The irreversibility of history: the case of the Ukrainian crisis (2013–2015),” which seems to refer to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War (the chapter was originally written in 2015).[1] The term is vague, and is used to represent any number of better and more specific articles in this encyclopedia. DAB page is appropriate. (And as I mentioned previously, Google Book Search returns 1,410 results published in the 20th century for "Ukraine crisis" OR "Ukrainian crisis" -Wikipedia, including references to 1917, 1939, 1991–92, and a potential crisis after 1994 within the first two pages of results.) —Michael Z. 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes and Rename/Move/Merge - This article should be moved to something like 2013-14 Ukrainian civil conflict and/or merged with 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. "Ukrainian crisis" should then become a Dab page. I don't want to sound like I'm hating on the 2015 move discussion above, but that was clearly a bad move. It was bad for two reasons; 1) It was obviously driven by WP:RECENTISM. Naming any article "Country X crisis" will obviously result in confusion the next time that country has a crisis. 2) It looks like we stole the title from the Britannica article. NickCT (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Russo-Ukrainian War - as noted above, that is in fact the article for this topic, and it's what most people are most likely looking for. It's clearly the most obvious match. I'm concerned sending it off to a disambig page where there is a myriad of articles is just confusing for the users. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. There is more than one significant Ukrainian crisis.--Seggallion (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes and Merge notable material relevant to the related articles and missing there. Almost every country X goes through crises every now and then, and the name 'X-ian crisis' used by the media at the time of the crisis rarely remains as the long-term name. Events such as the Suez Crisis are named more specifically than with a country name. Boud (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Boud (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes The title is way too vague. Not sure what the title should be but "Ukrainian crisis", if it should exist, should be a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonGlottal (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes this is needed at this point. LondonIP (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Move

Robert McClenon, you have moved articles that circumvent this process. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cinderella157 - This RFC is still running. I only move redirects to neverland when the need to move something else into their place is non-contentious. This will be non-contentious after the RFC is closed by an uninvolved editor. I will leave it alone for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cinderella157, that was not Robert McClenon but User:Anomalous+0 who did this move while RFC is still running. --Heanor (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies Robert McClenon. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 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.