Talk:Luhansk

message: Talk:Luhans'k – Luhans'k → Luhansk – to reverse the current redirect. Luhansk is currently used in English language media and most encyclopedias and dictionaries. Discussed and arguments in support presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions.
::Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~  
* Support This name corresponds to the standard transliteration used for geographic names in Ukraine, and is the most likely version to be used in the English media.  —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 20:56 Z
*Support. Use for more common English name recommended. Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy)  06:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (1st)

message: 'Historically the territory that was inhabited by the Don Cossacks, which explains the very large Russian minority and the almost dominant Russian language'.
Historically only one forth or even fifth of the Lugansk region was inhabited by Don Cossacks, and that does not explain almost dominant Russian language in the region cities. Don Cossacks did not founded Luhansk and never were its major inhabitants.
Also I have added all Luhansk twin cities (only Cardiff was mentioned before).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazata~enwiki (talk contribs) 23:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed the incorrect text from the article 

message: What a nice, concise and beautiful article! Thanks for this, Hu Gadarn 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great page! 

message: "as well as the administrative center of the surrounding Luhansky Raion (district) within the oblast"
There's no such "raion", because raion is the Ukrainian word for oblast' county and city district. 
Luhansk itself consists of 4 districts: 
1. Leninsky (Ле́нінський район, Lenin's), former Klimovsky (Клімовський, Klim's in the name of Kliment Voroshilov) — central district.
2. Zhovtnevy (Жовтне́вий, October's in Ukrainian) — the most populous district of the city.
3. Artemivsky (Арте́мівський, Artem's in the nickname of Soviet military leader Sergeev).
4. Kamyanobridsky (Кам’янобрі́дський, Kamennobrodsky in Russian, named after Kamyany Brid village — its name means Stone Ford) — the oldest district of the city.
As for the oblast' counties (such as Milovskyi, Novoaidarskyi, Novopskovskyi etc.), Luhansk does not belong to any of them.
There are so called міста обласного значення (cities of oblast' importance), they are 
Alchevs'k, Antratsyt, Bryanka, Kirovs'k, Krasnyy Luch, Krasnodon, Lisichans'k, Luhans'k, Pervomays'k, Roven'ki, Rubizhne, Severodonets'k, Stakhaniv and Sverdlovs'k.
Also there are cities, that are within the jurisdiction of the other cities or raions, e.g. Almazna is within the jurisdiction of Stakhaniv, one of Oleksandrivs'ks is within the jurisdiction of the Luhansk city Artemivsky raion Council (Rada) etc. 
All such cities (cities of oblast' importance and 'satellite' cities) do not belong to any raion and have their own territory.
Exceptions are only Popasna and Krasnodon cities, which are the capitals of Popasniansky and Krasnodons'ky raions, but exception prooves the rule: raion administrations and councils are located in these cities, but these government bodies govern only the raion territories, and not the cities, where they are located.
I hope this information can be used somehow for the article correction (I don't try to correct the article myself, because I am not the English native, and my text can be overfilled with mistakes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkony (talk • contribs) 11:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is so called "Luhansky Raion"? There's nothing like that here :) 

message: There is no such thing as Soviet Occupation, the city was part of the Don Cossack Host prior to that, and its name during Soviet time was Voroshilovgrad
When Luhansk was a part of the Don Cossack Host? It was a part of Zaporozhian Host till the second half of 18th century. Then it was on the territory of Slavo-Serbia. And left a part of Yekaterinoslav Governorate till 1918 and became one of the cities of Ukrainian People's Republic. You shouldn't confuse Luhansk on the right bank of Siversky Donets and little town Stanytsia Luhanska on the left bank. (Siversky Donets was such a border) Stanytsia Luhanska really was in Don Cossack Host till 1918. But Stanytsia Luhanska, not Luhansk. They are absolutely different settlements, they names are similar because of Luhanka River they both stay on. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Cossacks in Luhansk 

message: Please, add to the article. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map 

message: I am running information project about Luhansk. Well, everybody use Lugansk, because 90% of people in Luhansk speak Russian and the transliteration "Lugansk" is much better for this, because this is how it sounds when you actually get here, and if you try to say it "Luhansk" people will not understand you.
Anyway, here is a link for my website where I put 144 photos of Lugansk, places, building, events, people. http://www.luganskukraine.info/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuganskUkraine (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is great! I'd be happy to add these photos to the article where appropriate. Right now there is a licensing issue, since your web site states " All rights reserved". Could you release the photos under a Creative Commons License? Or just upload yourself at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. Basically, photos on Wikipedia can be used by anyone for anything as the original author is mentioned. Heptor (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of Luhansk 

message: This has been discussed on many other Ukrainian city talk pages and a clear consensus has been reached that the Russian variants of these city names will remain in the info boxes since they are, by and large, the most common English versions of the city's name.  Do not remove the Russian variants, especially for eastern Ukrainian cities where half or more of the population actually speaks Russian as their first language.  --Taivo (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian variant 

message: Standard Wikipedia practice in eastern Ukrainian, where as many as half of the population speaks Russian natively, is to include the Russian variants on placenames.  No citation is necessary any more than a citation is necessary for placing the Ukrainian variant in placenames where the majority of the community speaks Russian as their first language (as in the Crimea).  The citation tags were nothing more than WP:POINTy editing by an anonymous editor who is pushing an anti-Russian Ukrainian POV.  Citations are not necessary for these things.  --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian variants do no require citation 

message: Surely this article could be expanded. I'll do some research and see what I can come up with. It also needs some clean up, which I attempted but failed at. Zamdrist (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding article 

message: The so-called "Luhansk People's Republic" is largely a fiction as they are no more than Russian mercenaries without any kind of government or control.  Donetsk and Luhansk are simply lawless regions by and large (so adding "de facto" is a joke).  And to call life in Luhansk "normal" is a joke, were people in Luhansk not suffering of miserably under the reign of terror brought by the Russian thugs.  --Taivo (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ukraine didn't cease to pay out pensions because they recognize the so-called de facto authority of the Russian mercenaries.  They stopped paying out pensions because the money wasn't getting to the pensioners, but was being siphoned off to buy war materials for the Russian thugs.  There simply is no "law and order" and especially no "normal life" in the occupied Ukrainian territories.  There is no de facto government either.  Read the news and you'll see that just about every terrorist group has its own commander that doesn't report to any higher authority.  --Taivo (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

text: That would be me, and no I am not a "vandal" nor did I revert you three times. Unless you are referring to some other edits you might have made somewhere else with a different account or something. The text you are trying to insert into the article is WP:POV and certainly does not belong in the lede. We could put something like that in the article but word it neutrally, like "since April 2014, Luhansk has been occupied by pro-Russian separatists who consider it to be the capital of Lugansk People's Republic". Volunteer Marek  05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Also, this looks like block evasion . Volunteer Marek  05:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can build a WP:CONSENSUS for adding "de facto" in this article, Michailchi (or whatever anon IP you're using to evade a block), it's not going in.  Just because your Russian handlers want to recognize the terrorists in Luhansk as some kind of "civil authority" when they aren't doing anything at all for the civilian population doesn't means that it goes into Wikipedia.  Build a consensus here on the Talk Page first.  --Taivo (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the fiction of "life returning to normal" while under control of an invading army 

message: I recommend against the use of national flag icons for sister cities.  These cities do not represent their country or national government in their city-to-city relationships; the presence of the national flag icon implies otherwise.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, they do add "something," John.  The question is whether that "something" is appropriate when scrutiny is applied.  Given that these are cities, not countries, and these cities that do no represent their parent countries in these "sister city" relationships, I would argue that there is an element of misrepresentation in using the national flag icons to designate the cities.  Even more so when one considers the trivial nature of most of these sister city arrangements.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is legitimate to use flags in long lists. In short lists like this example all they add is visual clutter which some people find decorative. There can be no possible argument on a tiny list like this that they aid recognition or navigation. --John (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of flag icons for sister cities

message: I am not sure what is supposed to be in the :Category:City name changes in Ukraine but it looks like it is for the Ukrainian cities that were ever known under different names. Then the category is applied correctly as during most of the Soviet period the city was known as Voroshilovgrad. Not sure about the category :Category:Former Soviet toponymy, should the category be applied to Voroshilovgrad redirect? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The City name changes in Ukraine category is a potpourri of nonsense.  It includes cities that had a recent name change alongside cities that haven't changed their names since medieval times.  Rivne, for example, has not changed its name for centuries.  In fact, Rivne has carried that name since it was first mentioned in the 13th century--it has apparently never changed its name.  --Taivo (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  City name changed categories. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Luhansk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pogodaiklimat.ru/climate/34523.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we translate hotel names? Also, according to this, it's not active at the present: "На данный момент гостиница находится в нерабочем состоянии, некоторые её помещения сдаются под офисы, кроме этого на первом этаже расположен книжный магазин и аптека." --37.203.168.77 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really a matter of taste, and there are no hard and fast guidelines. In this instance, however, it's possibly best to use their own English language translation, being Hotel Complex "Ukraine", but "Hotel Ukraine" is also fine. Whether it is currently functioning or not is not of relevance to this article because, per WP:TITLE, it is not a current affairs article: the subject is the city and its general history, and should be kept on topic rather than being treated as being topical. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hotel Complex "Ukraine" is a hotel in Lutsk, not in Luhansk. The reason why I mentioned the current status of the hotel is because if it's no longer an actual hotel we should probably not use the word "hotel" with lower-case H. Moreover, we could add the word "building" to the name implying that it's a historic landmark. --37.203.168.77 (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact that it isn't functioning as a hotel at the moment is probably neither here nor there (and fairly self-evident), but a lower case 'h' should cover it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hotel Ukraina 

message: The term "occupation" is not neutral and is not used in any other article with a similar subject, for instance, in Stepanakert, the capital of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (it reads "Country: de facto part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic") or in Dubăsari, a city in the unrecognized Transnistria republic. Therefore a more neutral term "control" could be used. --37.203.168.77 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaking what the WP:NPOV policy actually means. If you check articles surrounding the recent events in Ukraine, you'll find that the WP:CONSENSUS stands at according to reliable sources. The LPR and DPR are unrecognised states and, according to the Minsk II protocols, are globally understood to be illegal. The neutral rendition of this is "Occupied". I would, however, point out that the article on :Donetsk has avoided falling into the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM traps by avoiding this type of information in the infobox and only addressing it the body of the article. Perhaps this article should follow suit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

text: The West Bank is listed in its Wikipedia article as being under "Israeli military occupation".  No need to apply different rules to Lugansk, which is currently under partial Russian occupation. 161.185.160.27 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no separatist group holding Ramallah. Much more apropos to the discussion is Ramallah, which is listed "[...] a Palestinian city in the central West Bank that serves as the de facto administrative capital of the State of Palestine[...]." More importantly, Israel does not consider itself to have legal authority over Ramallah, both in terms of it being Area C and in terms of Israel claiming no legal claim over the vast majority of the West Bank, and itself viewing its occupation of the West Bank as an occupation rather than rightful or independent territory. Under your own logic of using the West Bank, the Luhansk article should not use occupation-centric language Borawik (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the situation in the West Bank can be compared with the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation/control 

message: Folks please search the word "Lugansk" and "Luhansk" .
Lugansk gives you almost double the results(several millions more).
And it references exactly the name of the peoples republic of Luganks.
Also 178 results vs 198??? You've got to be kidding me. That is honestly just pure ridiculousness...
It's not even a couple of hundred results...Which means it could be easily altered by you or me..
Search results for Lugansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Lugansk About 5,380,000 results
Search results for Luhansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Luhansk About 3,190,000 results
It gives you the same result with or without quotation marks.
To change or create 20 pages and therefore alter the "most common way" people refer to "Lugansk" would take me about a day on the internet...
To alter or create 2 million plus pages on the internet ...Would take me 300 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or if someone took the task of altering this (say perhaps some government wanted to do this... it would take a huge chunk of their time/investment to do that.So they are not going to do that...
So 2 million+ (2 200 000) results more for Lugansk ...CLEARLY SHOWS YOU THAT LUGANSK IS THE COMMON WAY TO REFER TO LUGANSK and therefore Lugansk People's Republic!!!
To further prove my point please look at google trends that keeps track of all the searches over time.
By the way you can use google.co.uk or google.com or any other version of google for that matter...Results are pretty much the same...
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk - Looking at the word "luhansk" and its searches over time.
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=lugansk - Looking at the word "lugansk" and its searches over time.
The results above clearly show that lugansk was the most popular over time.
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=lugansk%20republic - Looking at words "lugansk republic" and their searches over time.
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk%20republic Looking at words "luhansk republic" and their searches over time.
The results above clearly show that lugansk republic was the most popular over time.
And to conclude Lugansk is the correct way to say and write it.And it is more popular.And is the most common way to reference it...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it should be moved. Lugansk is more widely used in the English language.  Heptor  talk 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the name of the article should be changed, you should use the process at WP:RM.  Such a change would be controversial, and would need to be discussed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was told to write here about correcting Lugansk name it's Lugansk... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Luhansk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609144903/http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?id=2940&d1=0 to http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?id=2940&d1=0
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lublin.eu/Miasta_partnerskie_Lublina-1-443-3-413_436.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://onkormanyzat.szekesfehervar.hu/index.php?pg=page_49881
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192404/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/x-ussr/100k/M-37-127.jpg to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/x-ussr/100k/M-37-127.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: add Luhansk People's Republic83.220.239.88 (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 16:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017 

message: add in change |subdivision_name =  *  (de jure)
+	
|subdivision_name = 
−	
*  Luhansk People's Republic (de facto) 79.111.80.221 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm overriding your response, . 'De jure' was edit warred in by a blocked account/editor 2 days ago, so there was no consensus to use it in the first instance. If editors wish to introduce it, consensus needs to be gained first, not visa versa. 'De facto' for LPD would also need to be discussed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is plenty of precedent to follow, for example Jerusalem, Tiraspol, Pristina, Laayoune. Both de jure and de facto situations are usually mentioned. Heptor (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also Katzrin, Stepanakert. Summarizing those, de jure assertions don't seem to stand in the way of presenting the factual situation. Heptor (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Luhansk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140915024216/http://lugansk-online.info/news/zakon-o-sisteme-ispolnitelnyh-organov-gosudarstvennoi-vlasti-luganskoi-narodnoi-respubliki to http://lugansk-online.info/news/zakon-o-sisteme-ispolnitelnyh-organov-gosudarstvennoi-vlasti-luganskoi-narodnoi-respubliki
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that the recent edits by  about the spelling of the name of the city had been reverted. I would like to add that although this spelling is a culturally sensitive matter, the policy of Wikipedia is to follow English-language sources. For more details see Wikipedia:Official_names. Previous discussions on this talk page concluded—rightly or not—that "Luhansk" is the name that has the widest usage in the most reliable English sources. For details, see Talk:Luhansk#Requested_move_(1st), Talk:Luhansk#Requested_move, Talk:Luhansk#Requested_move_27_February_2017.  I hope that this will not discourage people from improving the article in other aspects! Thanks, Heptor (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits about how to spell the name of the city 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The edit by 45.150.184.123 on 23 January still has no citation. I feel the first sentence under [] should be removed. Editor Ciara (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated claim 

message: The values presented in the Demographic section do not match the official values cited in the source
http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
Ukrainians = 1472.4	(58.0%)
Russians = 991.8 (39.0%)
Belarussians = 20.5 (0.8%)
Tatars = 8.5 (0.3%)
Armenians = 6.5 (0.3%)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:DF29:8000:1954:7665:70F3:F441 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong values in Demographics 

message: There has been an edit war over whether the line control in the infobox should read "Controlled" or "Occupied". The edit summaries of the two editors favouring "Controlled" claimed that this is the neutral term. Being one of the two editors favouring "Occupied", I hold that "Occupied" is also neutral, since WP's neutrality  and "occupied" is used by all the reliable sources I've seen on the subject. So, I think we should call a spade a spade (see WP:SPADE). Rsk6400 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The term controlled is widely used by RS:  UNHCR,  Washington Post,  El Pais,  Al Jazeera. Alaexis¿question? 18:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't claim that "controlled" was not used by RS. I just claimed that "occupied" is used, too. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it's not used, I just don't see reasons to change the wording. Alaexis¿question? 21:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't see a reason to change the wording, I think we can close this discussion here. The wording was "Occupied" before NicoVasc5 changed it to "Controlled" on Nov 20. I checked all the versions since Oct 14. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed in October from the stable version (Ru/separatist control).October 1, August 1  Alaexis¿question? 08:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was on Oct 2, but the previous state used neither "Controlled" nor "Occupied". Why should we want to change something that has been stable for 49 days ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the way it was displayed in the infobox, you'll see that the word control was used (). This version was stable for months, before that it fluctuated between "controlled by" and "country (de facto)", which is also an acceptable option from the NPOV perspective. Alaexis¿question? 12:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupied" is neutral term 

message: You repeatedly claimed that North Korea recognized the annexation. I read somewhere that they "supported" the annexation, but since "to recognize" has a specific, well-defined meaning in international law, I'd like to ask you to provide a source for your claim. Also: Please don't call an edit "vandalism" just because you disagree. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rsk6400 What are you talking about? There is entire Wikipedia page just on international recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts, that includes nunmerous sources proving both North Korean and Syrian recognition. Please educate yourself. You literally just Google search this and Google tells you that the countries revognise this. Don't negate the recognition, just because you don't agree with country's international stance. [Deleting true facts] and writing lies instead is VANDALISM. Blueginger2 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognized by North Korea ? 

message: I request that in the country section Russia be added as (De facto) and Ukraine be put as (De jure) LegendaryChristopher (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose. The annexation neither happened in accordance with national and international law, thus the results of these 'referendums' enjoy almost no recognition and have no real impact on an international level. Frank-Horst (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023 

message: Luhansk redesigned it's Flag and arms recently. I'm not an Extended Confirmed User and can't add it, so I need someone else to do it. Don't worry, Ruwiki said that they weren't under any copyright conditions. 
Anyways, here are the images:
Lugansk_c_scoa.jpg
Флаг_Луганска_2024.jpg Eehuiio (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: I see a lot of inaccurate info like "city in Ukraine", "annexed", the city is Russian both de jure and de facto while the article is showing a different picture etc. Klehus (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the United Nations doesn't recognize the annexation. It is not de jure. Eehuiio (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't the Russian editors correct the article about Lugansk?