Talk:Luhansk Oblast campaign/Archive1

Ukrainian military claims successfull counter-offensive at svatove front

so, apparently the commander of the ground forces of the UAF claims there has been a successfull counter-offensive by UAF on this front https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/4/7405244/ . This might deserve inclusion in the article. 1234567891011a (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

ISW

Most of these references are from ISW, maybe try to find other sources? 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really ridiculous. It also contributes to a crippling tone problem in the article where it only talks about day-by-day activities and makes it hard to tell the larger big-picture story or explain the reasons for events. I recommend more articles from traditional media outlets who have to explain the situation to their more general audiences. HappyWith (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Update this page

I think this page needs to be updated as we see that battles and conflicts around Kremina - Svatove line as well as Kupiansk again taking place... Changes on front are visible but I see her on the map advances just from 2022. 93.142.16.85 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to add Redut PMC to the infobox as involved unit

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is the same request as at Eastern Ukraine campaign, which is contested. Instead of issuing multiple requests across different articles, it would be nice if you could centralize this request in a single article and inform editors of all the pages you wish to make this change. Xan747 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add the private military company Redut (company) to the info box list of pro-Russian involved unit. The intelligence firm Grey Dynamics reported that the ISW designated Redut formation "Veterany" conducted offensive operations around Novoselivske in the Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line, listed as "Kramatorsk (December 2022)" in the article. Zerbrxsler (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Name, again

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.

---

I'm starting to wonder if it was a good idea to make the name of the article "Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line". A lot of the events we cover in this article, and the mainstream media cover as part of the battle are not on the Svatove-Kreminna defensive line. Also, it seems to me that the ISW is literally the only source that calls the sector "the Svatove-Kreminna line", but they don't even do that consistently. Sometimes it's "the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line", sometimes it's "the Kreminna direction" (this report, for example), etc. I'm worried we're just kind of taking that phrase from ISW reports and erroneously applying it to the entire northeastern sector even when it doesn't make sense.

There honestly doesn't seem to be a common name for it, despite it being a clear distinct sector of the frontline. An idea I had could be to move the article to Northeastern Ukraine campaign (October 2022—present) or Luhansk Oblast campaign (October 2022—present), akin to the way articles about the Syrian civil war are often titled. This would resolve the issues with making up an WP:OR name and with the nebulous article scope. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with the idea that this could be retitled Luhansk Oblast campaign, especially considering most sources calling it that are referring to the ISW, which as mentioned earlier, is inconsistent. I don't think there is a set name for this article that would fall under WP:COMMONNAME, so Luhansk Oblast campaign would be the best-fitting name.

I think both Kupiansk and Svatove don't deserve to be in the title, as they're objectives and not on the frontline. Unlike the proposed Sloviansk offensive, both Russian and Ukrainian sources use Kreminna, Kupiansk, and Svatove as interchangeable for the whole area. Jebiguess (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

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.

Casualties section in infobox

That parameter box has become extremely long, with tons of citations and opaque derivations of the numbers. We should move this to a new section in the article body called "Casualties and losses", and keep only the most important stuff in the infobox casualties parameter. HappyWith (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree and/or remove from infobox while this is ongoing and until there are good quality reports. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, all the content is already cited in the Casualties and losses section of the article, going to be bold and just remove that section from the infobox, and then beg forgiveness if people get mad. Scu ba (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Battle of Bilohorivka into Luhansk Oblast campaign

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Closing as nom because there is unanimous support. HappyWith (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

---

The settlement Bilohorivka is a minor node of combat on the northeastern front, with little significance to set it apart from the rest of the Luhansk campaign. Of what little actual reliable sourced content there is in the Bilohorivka article, (and there isn't much - the article constantly makes tons of detailed statements about wider strategies of both sides, then I go to the reference and it's an ISW report that barely mentions Bilohorivka) most of it is very vague reports of fighting that makes more sense in the context of the Luhansk campaign. I think this article was originally created back when the Luhansk article was titled "Battle of the Svatove-Kreminna line", and Bilohorivka is technically not on that defensive line so it was out of scope then, but that isn't an issue anymore. HappyWith (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been following what you have been doing. Once you remove all of the unverified cruft and the general babble what you are left with is just a ghost of no substance. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho @Cinderella157 I assume you two are supporting the merge, right? I just want to 200% confirm it, because I think if so, we have consensus and can close the discussion, since there's been no objection to the merge proposal in the weeks since it was created. HappyWith (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I support. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (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 24 August 2023

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: moved to Luhansk Oblast campaign. Consensus that the existing title is relatively obscure and does not clearly indicate the scale of the event; the descriptive title "Luhansk Oblast campaign" was identified as an improvement along both measures. The primary point of contention was whether the date range, "(October 2022–present)", should be appended to the title. Those favouring inclusion argued that the date range was valuable for minimising the risk of confusion, whereas those favouring exclusion noted that including the date range would be unnecessarily WP:PRECISE (as well as less WP:CONCISE). I don't see a clear consensus on whether to include or exclude the date range, but there's a clear consensus against retaining the current title, so I'm going to make a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close here; specifically, I've opted to close in favour of excluding the date range, as the argument on that side was more directly grounded in titling policy. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line → Luhansk Oblast campaign (October 2022–present) – As I brought up at § Name, again, "Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line" is not a true WP:COMMONNAME. It is only really used by Wikipedia, the Institute for the Study of War, and a handful of war-watchers - and as has been mentioned multiple times on this talk page, the ISW is not consistent with this label, making it unclear whether they actually are trying to designate it as its own distinct battle. Other sources in the article, like these [3][4] Ukrainian government sources, call it the "Kupyansk-Lyman direction", since Kupiansk is the goal of Russian forces in the area. Some of the best Western mainstream media coverage of the battle doesn't make any reference to a "line" [5] [6] and avoid giving it a definitive name at all, instead vaguely referring to a "northeastern front". Almost all of the few sources making reference to a battle on the "Svatove–Kreminna line" are quoting the ISW, who, as I've established, don't treat it as a definitive name either. The point is, the current name is not a common or established name for the battle outside of a few circles.

Therefore, my proposal is to move the article to the more descriptive title of Luhansk Oblast campaign (October 2022–present). I'm basing this naming standard off the one commonly seen in the articles about the Syrian civil war, as I mentioned in earlier talk page discussions. It just objectively describes where - broadly interpreted - and when the battle is taking place, and avoids using niche terminology that seems to be only consistently used by Wikipedia itself. We don't even really explain what the "Svatove–Kreminna line" is in the article.

Admittedly, there's one problem I can see with my proposed title, which is that the campaign is also taking part in some far east portions of Kharkiv Oblast, not just Luhansk Oblast. But I think that's okay, and less of a problem than us calling all of this fighting part of the "Svatove-Kreminna line" when a ton of the most significant fighting is simply not on that line. After all, we have an article called 2022 Kherson counteroffensive, when some of that fighting took place in Mykolaiv Oblast, because the main push was in Kherson. I'm open to suggestions for an alternative descriptive title, but I haven't been able to think of a better one myself. HappyWith (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

• Alternative Luhansk Oblast campaign. Per WP:CONCISE. Also, I don't see an issue with the scope using a broad brush such that the content is not "strictly" limited to within Luhansk Oblast but more generally, the fighting for Luhansk Oblast. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree Parham wiki (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep the date in the title, to avoid confusion with for example Battle of Donbas (2022–present). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Super Dro, I think removing the dates would make it seem like it’s covering the action in Luhansk during the entire war. HappyWith (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only necessary when there is otherwise an actual conflict in article titles. No such conflict in titles exists. Per WP:AT, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. This is the reason why the year was ultimately removed from Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:IAR. To me it is obvious that removing the date will result on confusion regarding the scope of the article both for editors and readers. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead (modified for the proposed title) might state: The battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line Luhansk Oblast campaign is a series of ongoing military engagements between Russia and Ukraine along a "roughly" 60-mile-long (97 km) frontline running between the towns of Kupiansk, Svatove, and Kreminna in for Luhansk Oblast, northeastern Ukraine during the Russian invasion. The battle began on 2 October 2022, a day after the Ukrainian Army recaptured the nearby city of Lyman. The infobox tells us it is Part of the eastern campaign of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the dates 2 October 2022 – present. I don't see how removing (October 2022–present) from the article title could reasonably result in confusion regarding the scope of the article both for editors and readers. We have already agreed that spatially, the scope will extend outside the strict limits of Luhansk Oblast (the fighting for Luhansk Oblast), without concern that it will result in confusion regarding the scope of the article both for editors and readers. Why then do we need this temporal precision in the title when it too is/will be defined by the lead? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t related to the date question, but I would actually propose we don’t include any bolded title in the lead, given that there is no common name, and simply lead with something along the lines of “Since October 2022 and the Kharkiv counteroffensive, a campaign has taken place along a 60-km frontline in western parts of Luhansk Oblast and far-eastern parts of Kharkiv Oblast” HappyWith (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, I was simply suggesting how the lead might be modified in light of the move. The point I was making is that the lead defines the scope both temporally and spatially. I am open to the proposal you make as to how the revised lead might actually read. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support I have nothing else to add. The nominator explained their rationale perfectly. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Likewise. Jebiguess (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Against it isn't really a campaign, it is a string of skirmishes on a defensive line. Renaming it to the "Luhansk Campaign" implies that Ukraine is making a concerted offensive action to retake the oblast, but all I've read on the front is that they have turned to defensive actions to hold onto their Kharkiv gains. Scu ba (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  it is a string of skirmishes on a defensive line

  This isn't really true, though? Russia has been pushing hard in this area, amassing huge amounts of troops and firing countless shells. Even if it was, the proposed title would still be better than the current one that's completely WP:OR. HappyWith (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2023 (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.