Wikipedia

Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 3

< Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Benjaminikuta in topic Summary
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

January 26

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

… claims that Ukraine has received the promised devilry of "321 heavy tanks to Ukraine".

(Devilry should be spelled delivery). 2600:6C56:6900:796:8C8E:ADE6:334:5272 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It turns out that the source did not say that the tanks had been delivered, so the item has been rewritten and the misspelled word removed. John Sauter (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

phase 4?

Latest comment: 1 year ago34 comments7 people in discussion

I noticed a major edit on the phase 3 page, deleting the timeline since Kherson. Is somebody preparing to divide phase 3 into phase 3 and phase 4? If so, please discuss it here on the Talk page. I am reverting the deletion since it should not occur until the new page is ready. John Sauter (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Great Mercian Could you advise the creation of Phase 4 and it states about the Russia Targeting Ukraine infrastructure but this has been on going from October 10th 20222022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure But the phase 4 has been created fr 12th November 2022 Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the phase 4 page was created without having first reached consensus on this Talk page. I propose to remove it, and references to it. If there is support for dividing phase 3 into two pages, we should decide where the division happens. Please provide your opinion here. John Sauter (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@John Sauter: a consensus is the last thing I want. from experience in this topic consensuses have been a nightmare, they are essentially a forum for other editors to metaphorically shout at you and your proposal, it's why I decided to forgo a consensus. Great Mercian (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Pranesh Ravikumar: I can. I noticed that since the liberation of Kherson nothing's really been going on other than then missile strikes, a topic I have tried to start a discussion on and everyone subsequently ignored. every sign that I saw since November 12 seemed to point to me that we were in a new phase. I knew if I had made a split proposal it would've immediately descend into chaos, as every other proposal revolving around this war does, so I decided to just split the page on my own accord and bare the brunt of the outrage later. I was also concerned about the size of the page (I.e. most of the dates being filled with missile strikes) making it unnavigable and the fact that anything post liberation was still being lumped into this phase even though the counteroffensives were over. to be honest I'm surprised only one of my edits got reverted and the page (to my knowledge) is still up. I hope this clears any misunderstanding. Great Mercian (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor. Not seeking consensus on a major edit because you are impatient is not in the spirit of collaboration. I have a proposal on the table: to remove phase 4 and all references to it. I invite alternative proposals. John Sauter (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@John Sauter: as I had said before, it was not because I was impatient, but because I knew if I started a consensus it would've immediately descended into chaos, what you are saying to me right now was the very thing I was trying to avoid. I'd argue Wikipedia is one of the worst places for collaboration. edit wars, the threats of reverting, a 1000 rules that haven't been simply defined or put into a single document for ease of access and understanding, split consensuses and so on. I am tired of having my edits reverting because of rules that were never pointed out to me when I first joined or users who pretend to not hold a grudge against me but clearly do, invite me for discussion to end an edit war that they instigated and then immediately bail, patting themselves on the back in the most entitled sense possible, I am being incredibly kind with how I describe this mind you. I made that edit because I wanted to and saw a consensus as the worst way possible.
That being said, my proposal is that we let phase 4 exist, as it has since November, we are clearly in a 4th phase now, we have to accept that. I don't do edits in bad faith and I've made that clear for a while now, so lets leave phase 4 as it is. I have never claimed to be an expert in Wikipedia and that is most likely Wikipedia's fault.
God I'm getting so frustrated. Great Mercian (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry you are frustrated, but thank you for participating in this discussion. We now have two proposals on the table: (1) remove the phase 4 page and all references to it, and (2) divide phase 3 into two pages, the existing phase 3 page to end at November 13 and the new phase 4 page to start at November 14. Are there any other proposals? Is there any discussion of these proposals? Are there any volunteers willing to do the work needed to carry out a particular chosen proposal? Since I proposed (1) I would do the work if it is chosen. John Sauter (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:Great Mercian and User:John Sauter about the discussion. User:Great Mercian have a good idea about Wikipedia basic rules and dont get frustrated on edits warring if you need some inputs from users try to tag them so that they will receive notification and respond to your talk page. You could always learn and groom from your edits and so continue contributions. In my opinion it is fine to have a phase 4 but we need some inputs from the page creators and top contributors for phase 3 insight to take a decision. User:Tol, User:WikiHannibal, User:Jjmclellan82 provide your input about the phase 4 page. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit too busy to fully evaluate and weigh in on whether there should be a "phase 4" page. I will, however, note that:
  • Wikipedia should be based on what reliable secondary sources are saying, and whether we include a "phase 4" should depend on whether they do.
  • The unilateral creation of a "phase 4" page was quite bold, and was perfectly acceptable, but I would consider it preferable to seek consensus before making a change if you think it will almost certainly be contested. I think @Great Mercian's comment that "a consensus is the last thing I want", though, is the wrong attitude to take here — consensus is key, especially for tricky subjects like these.
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't want a consensus because I knew it would drown into chaos/become a forum for people to "shout" at me for making such a bold edit. Great Mercian (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If you think it's going to "drown into chaos" and be contentious, that's the kind of situation where it is most important to get consensus. There's no deadline for when this stuff needs to be created, and it's better if it's done in a consensus-achieving manner. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia should put it's rules on the main page or something, at the very least a very simplified version. Great Mercian (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In response to the objection that we should not include a phase 4 page until a reliable source does, that is not what we did when we divided the original page into phases 1, 2 and 3. How things are presented in Wikipedia is the responsibility of us editors, so we had the right to divide the page because it was becomming so large that it could not be read easily. If the phase 3 page is likewise becomming too large we can divide it to make the material easier to use. Using byte count as a proxy for size, the phase 1 page is currently 237,685 bytes, the phase 2 page is currently 235,882 bytes and the phase 3 page is currently 183,770 bytes. Therefore I suggest that creating a phase 4 page is not necessary at this time. When in the future the page 3 page becomes so large that it needs to be split up, we can decide where to divide it, and that might well be November 12, 2022. John Sauter (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

While the new layout does fix one problem I had with the page (absurdly large navbox), I still think we are in a new phase so to leave it as is would be wrong, e.g. I don't think the battle of Bakhmut belongs in the same phase as the liberation of Kharkiv oblast. Great Mercian (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the article for "phase 4" already exists at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 and it begins at november 14, it is obvious that literally everything in the phase 3 article from that date onwards should be moved into the phase 4 article and the phase 4 and deleted from there. As is, the phase 3 article confusingly ends at january 18. GMRE (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is one of the solutions being proposed. The other is to delete the phase 4 page after first merging it into the phase 3 page. John Sauter (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@GMRE since the reliable sources so far have not suggested for any phase 4 scenario I think it would be good if we right now removed the article right now, @Tol and @John Sauter stated the same. Merging seems to be not necessary since most of the content available in phase 4 is already available in Phase 3. Phase 3 has also been updated till date compared to Phase 4. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The whole point of the "phase" terminology in these timeline articles was to be parallel to those in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is no "phase 4" in the main article, so this vaguely defined "fourth phase timeline" should be removed. I've commented the same rationale on the AFD for the article. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Ukranian counteroffensives (description of phase 3) are continuing? If none, then a phase 4 seems appropriate, it just needs a definition. Just because a phase 4 does not as yet exist in the main article does not mean that a phase 4 cannot be defined here if there is a consensus for that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I define Phase 4 as starting with the end of the southern counteroffensive (eastern ended earlier), so November 12. I don't think something as the rapid liberation of Kharkiv oblast can be grouped with the battle of Bakhmut. Great Mercian (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
And to answer the main article question, I hadn't thought to edit that article and tbh it feels like a big edit I'd have to make, so I'd at least to have some help with that. Great Mercian (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier - Refer the below links for reference.

https://www.euronews.com/2022/12/13/russian-forces-bolster-defences-against-ukraines-counter-offensive-in-the-east

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-prepares-counteroffensive-kharkiv-oblast-180800382.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALCkUOnOPZ5NL7f-ncNqya_mpsGf6fzAHq8IeXnfQ8qqYwDFpCSgj8t0a9FbAKgQJakp8wuFvSzIUwgOvF_zhvWvq7EG9OdC4s0fpWKYamQm3xcugqrUGW7ZPQddTqcN-vtGtXoJ4JRHiDyYwNiyQn3EWYq0XJ-_SfL5PYmuptIL

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/12/12/ukrainian-troops-may-be-massing-for-their-fourth-counteroffensive-russian-artillery-is-already-trying-to-stop-them/?sh=4462091e761c

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/12/12/ukraine-war-kyiv-says-will-resume-counteroffensive-as-soon-as-ground-freezes-a79667

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2023/01/04/ukraine-marshalling-troops-for-next-major-offensive-heres-when-and-where-kyiv-could-strike

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-officials-advise-ukraine-wait-offensive-official-says-2023-01-20/ Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Reads like both sides getting ready to do something but not much happening overall. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

continue discussion

The discussion on deletion has closed, throwing the decision back here to the Talk page. I believe the two possibilities under discussion are:

  • Delete the phase 4 page and all references to it, moving its informaton to the phase 3 page
  • Keep the phase 4 page, update it to include the information in the phase 3 page, remove the information from the phase 3 page that is in the phase 4 page, and update the discussion of the war to reflect the addition of phase 4

We have a volunteer to do the work of the first option. Do we have a volunteer to do the work of the second option? John Sauter (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll do the 2nd option, but I'm still confused as to why you want to delete it. Great Mercian (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That's great, we have two viable options. I ask other editors to offer to assist in one option or the other, so we can achieve consensus. John Sauter (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
yeah I guess there was no avoiding that, I just want to end this nightmare. Great Mercian (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@John Sauter: the more I think about it, i think the consensus should instead lie in where the page starts, not if it should exist. I'd still say November 12 though. we really need to get this over with. Great Mercian (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Assuming we decide to have a phase 4, I would have no objection to changing its starting date. As far as getting it over with, I think we need to wait for more input from other editors. Right now, we have no consensus. John Sauter (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
We've been waiting for a consensus since 10 minutes after the article was created Great Mercian (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems like RSs have actually started calling it a separate phase in the time since this discussion started. (see this talk section. As a result, I've changed my mind. I think the phase 4 timeline page should be kept now, with its starting date adjusted if it conflicts with what the RSs are saying. We should also probably apply this logic to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, adding another subsection talking about the infrastructure bombings and the Bakhmut-Soledar offensive. HappyWith (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on your reference to Tim Judah, I agree. I would like to leave a reasonable time for objections, and if there are none we have consensus. However, those editors who support the second option need not wait to begin work on implementing it. John Sauter (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It appears that we have reached consensus that there should be a phase 4 page. The dividing line between the phases is being discussed below. John Sauter (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Phase 3 split

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments8 people in discussion

Could each of them advise on phase 3 split on how we could split the same User: WikiHannibal, User:GMRE, User:Great Mercian, User:John Sauter, User:Tol , User:Jjmclellan82 Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should follow the timeline laid out by Tim Judah in his January 2023 article in the New York Review of Books. Tim has more than one such article, and they are all behind paywalls. If an editor could plant here a citation to the correct article, and an editor could extract Tim's timeline, we can all proceed to update Wikipedia. John Sauter (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Tim Judah has cited the below as chapters in the below link,
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2023/01/19/ukraines-volunteers-tim-judah/
The first chapter will cover the Russian forces’ lunge at Kyiv, which they expected to fall within days, and will end with their retreat at the end of March and beginning of April. Date range up till 7th April
The second will culminate in their helter-skelter retreat in September from Kharkiv and the surrounding region, which they blithely assumed would welcome them because its people speak Russian. Date range up till 11 September
The third chapter will end in November, when the Russians were driven out of Kherson in the south. Date range up till Nov 9th
Chapter 4 will be different, though.(From Nov 10th and present)
Does this timeline works? Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for finding Tim Judah's chapters. I think the dates you present are good. John Sauter (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I propose to have "phase 3" represent Ukraines first set of counterattacks and the current relatively quiet period. This current "all quiet on the eastern front" situation is not really all quiet in the sense that this is the time during which the EU and UN made several very strong statements against Russia and established some legal grounds to punish Russia. This is also the period when the international community agreed to start providing contemporary weapons systems, after much negotiations. This all contributes heavily on Ukraines side. The "phase 4" should start once the next actual phase starts. By this I'm referring to the rumors of a major russian attack being prepared to start during the next couple of months and the rumors that Ukraine will have their new western weapon systems and crew training finished by spring. This is when Ukraine will start their next major counterattack. Which ever of these two will happen next, it would be a good reason to call it a next phase. GMRE (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We need a precise proposal for the date range for each phase. I think Tim Judah's dates, presented above, are good, not least because they are from a reliable source. John Sauter (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I still feel we should stick with our current dates, maybe that's an effect of making the article. I really, really don't think the period of quietness should be in the same phase as the rapid counteroffensives. Great Mercian (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Tim's dates are not too different from our current dates, and he has studied the war in person as it has evolved on the ground, hence he is a good source. The discussion on the Delete page recommended that we make the divisions based upon a Reliable Source. John Sauter (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Since we need some kind of source to cite the users that the timeline is split in a certain way we might take Tim Judah's sources. The only problem with Tim Judah it did not phase 3 split based on counteroffensive so phase 3 and other phases needed to be re edited accordingly if we are considering Tim Judah. When creating a phase 5 also we could use Time Judah timeline in that case. Since one admin cited that the decision stated that split should be made outside Wikipedia who are experts. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's an idea. @Pranesh Ravikumar: where do you think the articles should be split? Give me exact dates please. Or should we keep to the status quo? Great Mercian (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As per Time Judah

First phase date will range up till 7th April

Second Phase date range from April 8th to 11 September

Third Phase date range from 12 September to Nov 9th

Fourth phase from Nov 10th to present. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It was the timeline mentioned by Time Judah. User:Great Mercian - is this fine? Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Tim Judah Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but those dates just feel wrong. Like why does phase 3 start after the liberation of Kharkiv Oblast? Why does phase 4 start just before the liberation of Kherson? They feel wrong. I'm tired of this whole discussion. I have spent 3-4 insufferable weeks seeing my article, my article, get disputed, get nominated for deletion and the amount of stress I've felt from the same 5 people debating the need for my article's existence without taking into consideration why I made it. Maybe that's my fault not including an edit summary, I did start writing one but decided against it. I want to keep the dates as they are right now, I don't care about any reliable sources or original research bullshit, I have fucking had it with this entire discussion. We're going to keep to the status quo, and we're going to like keeping to the status quo. Keep dates as is and close discussion. Great Mercian (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. No matter how much you have contributed to an article, it is not yours. Yes, you should have included an edit summary--it was lack of such a summary that caused me to revert your massive edit to the phase 3 page. Now that we have a Reliable Source that divides the war into four chapters we should follow it, no matter how much it feels wrong to you. We are editors, not subject-matter experts. John Sauter (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Way to feel talked down to. Great Mercian (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Listen, this is not about a personal idea. Wikipedia is built on collaboration using reliable sources. Just because you feel like the dates are wrong, we take reliable sources any day over just one person on the internet. Gabe114 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
”No original research” and ”reliable sources” are literally core content policies of this website… You can’t just ignore those because you’re frustrated. This whole mess was started by you creating an article, deliberately ignoring the consensus process because you thought that people wouldn’t like it and it would get bogged down in discussion. I can understand your frustration, but please don’t make frivolous calls to close the discussion and “keep the status quo and like it”. This is a rules-based project. HappyWith (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Could others provide your opinions - User: WikiHannibal, User:GMRE, User:Tol , User:Jjmclellan82 Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not like the overlap but I do have time to research what specific dates are OK. A consensus of editors is needed; if it is based on RS, even better. Also while doing this, it would help to look into the timespan of 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive and 2022 Kherson counteroffensive and sources there. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, but I don't have the time to research sources enough to form an opinion on this. However, whatever the result is, I would prefer for this timeline and the main article to have the same 'phases'. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The next major attack by Russia is rumored to start with in about a month. The easiest and by far the most logical option at this point would be to keep the "phase 3" up to then and start the "phase 4" when the russian major offensive begins. That will actually be an indisputable new phase (assuming that their attack won't fail immediately with in a few days). It is increasingly likely that their next attack will begin on the 24th, but the specific date is just speculation. This argument will likely last until then. GMRE (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Phase 3 will be split

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

We do not have unanimity, but after several days of no additional comments I believe we have consensus. We will split the phase 3 page into phase 3 and phase 4. The dates of the phases will be those of the four chapters described by Tim Judah:

  • Phase 1: February 24, 2022 to April 7, 2022.
  • Phase 2: April 8, 2022 to September 11, 2022.
  • Phase 3: September 12, 2022 to November 9, 2022.
  • Phase 4: November 10, 2022 to the present.

I invite all editors of these pages to contribute to this effort. John Sauter (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Why does the 3rd phase now end with 11 Nov then? Just curious. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I was in the middle of updating the dates of the phases in the articles; they should be correct now. John Sauter (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@John Sauter Please note that I have requested admin as per WP:DR to help us resolve the issue. In case of any updates from the meditator will update regarding the same. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Pranesh Ravikumar and WikiHannibal: There is a discussion about the Phase 3 to Phase 4 terminology at the Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. All editors invited for discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Dates in the timeline infobox at the top of the page (and Phase 4 as well) need to be chnged accordingly. Also, has this been done already or are thouse 110,000 in limbo somewhere: "deleted all matrial after November 11. That material will be merged into the phase 4 page."? WikiHannibal (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I updated the infobox a while ago. If it is currently not correct, please fix it. The merge is not yet done--the old material is in Wikipedia's history. The most urgent problem at the moment is getting the other articles that refer to the timeline updated. This is under discussion. John Sauter (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Pranesh Ravikumar and WikiHannibal: I've updated the discussion at the Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. All editors invited for added comments on that Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested fix of article names

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article moves and name changes I'm suggesting to address this is to change Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 to "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (later operations)", and, similarly, Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 to "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (early operations)", or something like that in wording. That would be the most straightforward fix at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I would have no objection to these name changes. John Sauter (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments9 people in discussion
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: not moved. This move request was dependent on another article, Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, also being moved. That move request was rejected, and so this move request is no longer valid - in the future, connected move requests like these should be opened as a multi-page rm.

It is also not moved by consensus here; while many editors disagree with the current title, there is also a consensus against the proposed title. An RM, with a different title, perhaps disambiguating with months instead of phases, may find consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

– The proposed new name for the phase 3 article is a compromise for editors who object to having a numbered phase 4 article. A similar proposal will be made for the phase 4 article, which has its own Talk page. John Sauter (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC) –Fixed name of article to be renamed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The request here is for a name change, not for a fork. The names of some subordinate sibling article currently contradict the naming conventions used in the main article. Its not a fork question as I'm reading it, but a name change request. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Ten I am confused as to why we need a rename, unless there will be another article titled "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (late operations)". Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is a proposal to change the name of the phase 4 article to "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (late operations)". John Sauter (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Mzajac Your edit comments appear to be pulling in two different directions. On the main Talk page you seemed to state that you were displeased with the use on interation by numbers for the separate phases; yet here you state you are opposed to fixing the problem. I'm not sure which way to see you are pulling; do you want interated number phases for the invasion or the opposite? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know what interation means, but there and here I say the same thing: regardless of what phasing we use to organize some articles or article sections, titles should use recognizable descriptive phrases, not obscure phase numbers that are not universally or widely used and not recognized by readers and editors.
It doesn’t meet the WP:CRITERIA. I have no idea what phase 3 is. I can’t even confidently tell if it refers to part of the war, of the war since February 2022, or what. —Michael Z. 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Mzajac: Iteration refers to the sequence of Phase 1, going to Phase 2, going to phase 3, going to phase (n), going to phase (n+1), which I thought you have stated previously that you were opposed to. At this rate the article seems to be moving towards phase 11 by the end of the year. Could you reconsider, or, offer some option which works for you; the sibling articles are up to phase 4 now with no end in sight for this iteration approach by other editors? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good idea for the renaming. The subordinate sibling articles like this one are currently inconsistent with the naming conventions in the main article, and this name change puts it all straight. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. As the proposer of this name change, of course I support it. I proposed it in the hope of gaining general agreement on the organization of the timeline pages, and the consequent changes to the articles that refer to them. I do not feel strongly about the name, but I do think that the dates of each phase should be based on a Reliable Source. John Sauter (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    We found a reliable source last month. What's with you constantly flip-flopping on this matter? Great Mercian (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That "early operations" subtitle is confusing by not specifying whos "operations" are being described. I also feel that the whole thing about deciding that these are "phases" and further deciding that these are "operations" is wrong and something that the wiki shouldn't be making up. What high-ranking military persons, or politicians have referred to the situation as "early operations" (and the items in "phase 4" as "later operations") anyway? I haven't seen this in any source. GMRE (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I support to rename but as cited by User:Mzajac we could better go with months in the article title. Since the early operations could be then questioned about their WP:RS Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This looks like Pranesh is stating Support, though he can state it his own way. This approach would allow the discussion of a new TOC for the 2022 Russian invasion article once the names of the sibling articles are corrected. There is no phase 4 in the main article for this subject. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 27 February 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.

Day subheaders

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do we really need a separate subheader for every day, even when that day's events get summarized in a single sentence? eg: for 9 September, it just says "Ukrainian forces retook parts of Kharkiv Oblast". It makes the TOC very big, when there really isn't that much content in each day. Couldn't we just make the subheader describe a date range, and say "On 9 September..." before each entry. I don't know what guidelines there are about this kind of thing, if any. HappyWith (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments13 people in discussion
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

– The "phase" terminology on these articles past "phase 2" is complete original research. In a discussion at Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Phase_terminology_in_this_article, editors came to a rough consensus that any "phases" after "phase 2" were not supported by reliable sources. In the words of Cinderella157 in that discussion, While sources did refer to a "new phase" for the retreat from Kyiv, we have adopted this terminology when it is not otherwise supported by good quality sources for other sections that follow. The use of "Phase x" implies authority in naming, which isn't the case - it is largely arbitrary and constructed by our editors. This is not how we are supposed to be titling articles.

As was suggested by myself and others in that discussion, I propose moving these subpages to descriptive titles with structure similar to that of Timeline of the Syrian civil war. If you go to that page, you'll see that they name each sub-article by its timespan. eg. "Timeline of the Syrian civil war (May–August 2012)", "Timeline of the Syrian civil war (January–April 2017). This is much more in line with wiki policy, and makes a lot more sense to the reader than being confronted with a bunch of terminology about "phase 3" and "phase 4" that simply does not exist outside of Wikipedia.

These new titles are not perfect. Ideally, I would like to be able to remove the days from the dates, and just have each article cover a span of months, like how the Syrian civil war page does it, because it's ugly and the exact dates that separate stages of the war aren't supported by WP:RS, but that would be really hard to get consensus on, and would require moving content between pages to match the changes in scopes, so I would like to leave that for a later discussion, and not discuss it here. Regardless, I think that these proposed titles are a clear improvement on the existing situation, and a step in the right direction. HappyWith (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I made a typo in my original post, accidentally leaving in colons where they shouldn't have been. It's fixed now. HappyWith (talk) 20:42, 6 April 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.

2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive section

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, maybe we need a seperate section that for the specific link to the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, that we could name, well, "2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive". Because the "2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive" link sur doesn't deserve to be in the "second stalemate" section. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it's already there. What do you mean? HappyWith (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't at the correct place and I could not correct it. when I posted, it was still in the "second stalemate section" and did not had the same title ^^ 5.51.183.7 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Yep, the split was at 12:07, I postetd at 9:56 and you answered at 14:43. So it's done. 5.51.183.7 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Title should be changed to "Timeline of the War in Ukraine"

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Obvious. Karajan1488 (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Do these articles really need to exist/have so many tiny 1-sentence stories?

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm normally on the side of the inclusionists when it comes to most information in most articles, and I think that when in doubt, things should be kept. However, I just find it very difficult to justify having six articles that are nothing but day-by-day collations of whatever new headlines have come out about this war. It smacks of the most egregious kind of recentism, and helps basically no one to have a better understanding of the war as it has actually happened.

For example, look at today, November 24, on Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 September 2023 – present):

One person was killed by Russian shelling in Kherson Oblast.

Russia claimed to have shot down 16 drones over Crimea and Volgograd Oblast.

A resident of Sloviansk, Donetsk Oblast was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for spying on the Ukrainian military for Russia. A resident of Vinnytsia was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for similar charges and aiding Russian airstrikes.

What is any of this? What actual value is supposed to be taken away from having read this? It's all so individualized and atomized as to be useless—all trees, no forest. Sure, all of this information meets notability guidelines. Sure, all of this information is supported by reliable, published sources. But neither of those things make information encyclopedic! As I see it, there needs to be a major reformat and/or trimming of these articles to make them actual useful coverage of a war. I don't really know what exactly a "fixed" version of these articles looks like, but I figure someone needs to sound the alarm instead of letting these things continue to bloat. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and according to the bulletins here Ukraine’s counter offensive(s) get half of the space. Can anyone explain to me why there is a continued part? This whole page is a mess of information. 142.161.85.51 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor corrections in Prelude

Two things I noticed just now:

  • "Putin proposesd a prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO" -- should be either "proposes" or "proposed."
  • "On 10 February 2023, Russia and Belarus began 10 days of military maneuvers" -- from context, this should be 2022.

Thanks. L.J. Wolfe 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Should a new timeline section be created to reflect the fact the 2023 counteroffensive failed? Looking for a consensus.

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Both Ukrainian leaders and Western analysts & media have widely stated that the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive failed in its objectives, and that the war is currently in a stalemate. The main page (Russian invasion of Ukraine) has a new section called 2023-2024 Winter stalemate (1 December 2023 – present).

Should a new timeline section be created, starting in say December 2023 or even January 2024, to reflect the fact the war is in a stalemate? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree.
The ZSU has retreated to more defensible positions, more than half a kilometer in the Rabotyne salient, the location of their counterattack this spring. Along with widespread reporting from credible western media and statements from the east (both from the Russian MoD and Zelensky) I feel like the conclusion is quite obvious. There is no shame in making this conclusion here, the focus has clearly shifted to Russian offensive operations along the front. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-27-2023 167.98.138.19 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the box at the top please change: 

Second winter campaign

to something more like: 

Third stalemate

or 

2023-2024 winter stalemate

or 

Winter stalemate

Because "Second winter campaign" is confusingly the title of an article related to Ukraine, but about a long-ago event. When the description "Second winter campaign" was added a few days ago I remembered that as the title of the new split article. So, when I wanted to find the latest section of the timeline during my next visit to Wikipedia I searched for that phrase. I arrived at the article with the title "Second winter campaign" and was very confused for a bit because it has little to do with current events, but does concern a war in Ukraine. Uhoj (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Uhoj: Hello! Perhaps, this edit request would be more appropriate at the Template:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Feel free to copy it to the template's talk page. Also, I think the consensus needs to be established first before making a change like this. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions Deltaspace42! I'll try to build consensus over at the template talk page. Uhoj (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Maternity

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No word on the maternity bombing under the subsection March 9? What? 74.135.194.87 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article should summarize the war. I go to the most recent sub article, and it's just day by day, no high level summary. Benjamin (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_3&oldid=1239198872"